IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v11y2020i3p380-417_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefit–Cost Analysis of Community-Led Total Sanitation: Incorporating Results from Recent Evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Radin, Mark
  • Jeuland, Marc
  • Wang, Hua
  • Whittington, Dale

Abstract

We analyze the economic costs and benefits of “community-led total sanitation” (CLTS), a sanitation intervention that relies on community-level behavioral change, in a hypothetical rural region in sub-Saharan Africa with 200 villages and 100,000 people. The analysis incorporates data on the effectiveness of CLTS from recent randomized controlled trials and other evaluations. The net benefits of this intervention are estimated both with and without the inclusion of a positive health externality, that is, the additional reduction in diarrhea for an individual when a sufficient proportion of other individuals in the community construct and use latrines and thereby decrease the overall load of waterborne pathogens and fecal bacteria in the environment. We find that CLTS interventions would pass a benefit–cost test in many situations, but that outcomes are not as favorable as some previous studies suggest. The model results are sensitive to baseline conditions, including the value of time, income level used to calculate the value of a statistical life, discount rate, case fatality rate, diarrhea incidence, and time spent traveling to defecation sites. We conclude that many communities likely have economic investment opportunities that are more attractive than CLTS, and recommend careful economic analysis of CLTS in specific locations.

Suggested Citation

  • Radin, Mark & Jeuland, Marc & Wang, Hua & Whittington, Dale, 2020. "Benefit–Cost Analysis of Community-Led Total Sanitation: Incorporating Results from Recent Evaluations," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 380-417, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:11:y:2020:i:3:p:380-417_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588820000068/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abramovsky, Laura & Augsburg, Britta & Lührmann, Melanie & Oteiza, Francisco & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2023. "Community matters: Heterogeneous impacts of a sanitation intervention," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    2. Whittington, Dale & Thomas, Duncan Andrew, 2023. "Teaching Water and Sanitation Economics and Policy with a Focus on Low- and Middle-Income Countries," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 5(3), September.
    3. Ester Guijarro & María Clavel & Álvaro Fernández-Baldor, 2022. "Participatory Methodologies for Self-Management of Waste: Case Study for the Reduction of Plastics in the Sahrawi Refugee Camps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Darcy M. Anderson & Ryan Cronk & Lucy Best & Mark Radin & Hayley Schram & J. Wren Tracy & Jamie Bartram, 2020. "Budgeting for Environmental Health Services in Healthcare Facilities: A Ten-Step Model for Planning and Costing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Seungman Cha & Sunghoon Jung & Dawit Belew Bizuneh & Tadesse Abera & Young-Ah Doh & Jieun Seong & Ian Ross, 2020. "Benefits and Costs of a Community-Led Total Sanitation Intervention in Rural Ethiopia—A Trial-Based Ex Post Economic Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Gelli A & Kemp CG & Margolies A & Twalibu A & Katundu M & Levin C, 2022. "Economic evaluation of an early childhood development center–based agriculture and nutrition intervention in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(1), pages 67-80, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:11:y:2020:i:3:p:380-417_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.