Project Reports

March 16, 2012

Cost Effectiveness And Benefit Cost Analysis Of Some Water Interventions In Bauchi State In Nigeria

This study presents a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
of two water interventions in Bauchi state, Nigeria aimed at reducing the
incidence of and death from diarrhea disease namely: the Pipeline and Hand pump
water supply schemes.

Read →


Author:Eberechukwu Uneze,Ibrahim Tajudeen&Ola Iweala

Publication Date:September, 2011

Document Size: 42pages


This report presents a Cost-Effectiveness analysis of water interventions in Bauchi state,Nigeria, with particular emphasis on pipeline and borehole (Hand pump) water supply schemes.Using the measures adapted from Whittington et al (2008), this study estimates the cost andeffectiveness measures such as time savings and health benefit aimed at reducing the incidenceof and death from, diarrhea disease. First, it conducts a BASIC CEA which compares the cost perhousehold per year of PWS with BWS program. Second, it performs a PROGRAM CEA todetermine the relative effectiveness of the programs. The cost analysis shows that BWS is lessexpensive than PWS. Combining cost and effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness ratio shows theBWS is more cost-effective than the PWS program.

Nevertheless, CEA is not sufficient to determine the most attractive intervention, since itcannot quantify cost and effectiveness in the same unit. Hence, a benefit-cost analysis, whichestimates the monetary value of benefits, is applied. The results of the BCA seem to supportthe evidence that emerged from the cost-effectiveness analysis.

A sensitivity analysis is then performed to determine the robustness of these findings. A onewayand multi-way sensitivity analyses (with worse and best case scenarios) performed on theresults show that BWS is more cost-effective and attractive. The study then concludes with arecommendation that in areas where there are high cases of morbidity/mortality fromdiarrheal, access to portable water and improved health outcomes in densely populated areascan be achieved by diverting resources from BWS to PWS, that is by increasing pipeline watersupply. The converse is true for sparsely populated areas with low cases of morbidity/mortalityfrom diarrheal. However, in mildly populated areas with moderate cases ofmorbidity/mortality, PWS and BWS can be implemented as complements.




Related

 

Nigeria Economic Update (Issue 41)

Latest World Economic Outlook (WEO) report by the International Monetary Fund reveals that Nigerias economy will grow by 1.9 percent in 2018 an unchanged stance from earlier projections. However, the figure is 2.9 percentage points lower than the 4.8 percent 2018 estimated growth rate in Nigerias ERGP (Economic Recovery and Growth Plan) 2 showing a very large disparity between domestic and international growth forecasts for Nigeria. The Funds projection however seems to have taken into cognizance underlying factors that could slow growth in the medium term: faster pace of population growth relative to GDP growth3, poor policy implementation, banking system fragilities and foreign exchange market segmentation.

An Analysis Of The Nigerian Economic Growth And Recovery Plan

This Paper examines the response of the Nigerian government to the ongoing recession in the domestic economy, particularly in the context of the recently released Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) for 2017-2020. It also provides an analysis of key questions regarding the suitability, achievability, and prospect of the ERGP. The second section of the brief runs through the state of the Nigerian economy with a focus on the cause and drivers of the ongoing recession. The third section reviews the objectives, implementation strategy, and expected outcomes of the ERGP over the medium-term. The fourth section weighs on the potentials of the ERGP by analyzing some pertinent questions: Is the proposed recovery plan and policies well-targeted to address prevailing economic crises in Nigerian economy?