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 52)

Recently released population estimate figures by the Nigeria Bureau of Statistics, show a significant increase in Nigerias population, based on the 2006 census. Notably, total population grew by an estimated 40 percent from 2006, to 193 million persons in 2016. Also, disaggregate demographic data from 2007 to 2016, reveals an increase in the number of males (74 million to 99 million) and females (71 million to 95 million), with a 2016 gender (males to females) percentage ratio of 51:49. The high rate of population growth can be attributed to the improvements in average annual rate of natural increase the difference between crude birth rate and death rate. As in preceding years, the composition of children and youths make up the highest share of the population growth. This presents a potential increase in the rate of labour supply. Going forward, there is need for the government to support rapid job creation in order to check the potential upsurge in unemployment rate.

Nigeria Economic Update (Issue 16)

Recently released World Economic Outlook by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects economic activities to increase significantly in developing countries- especially Nigeria. Annual real output is expected to grow by 0.8 percent in 2017 from the contraction of 1.5 percent in 20161. Improvement in economic activities is hinged on prospective favorable effects of continued increase in commodity export price (Crude oil is expected to increase to $55 per barrel in 2017 compared to $46 in 2016).