OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and quantify the economic benefits attributable to improvements in water supply and sanitation in rural India. METHODS: We combined propensity-score "pre-matching" and rich pre-post panel data on 9500 households in 242 villages located in four geographically different districts to estimate the economic benefits of a large-scale community demand-driven water supply programme in Maharashtra, India. We calculated coping costs and cost of illness by adding across several elements of coping and illness and then estimated causal impacts using a difference-in-difference strategy on the pre-matched sample. The pre-post design allowed us to use a difference-in-difference estimator to measure "treatment effect" by comparing treatment and control villages during both periods. We compared average household costs with respect to out-of-pocket medical expenses, patients' lost income, caregiving costs, time spent on collecting water, time spent on sanitation, and water treatment costs due to filtration, boiling, chemical use and storage. FINDINGS: Three years after programme initiation, the number of households using piped water and private pit latrines had increased by 10% on average, but no changes in hygiene-related behaviour had occurred. The behavioural changes observed suggest that the average household in a programme community could save as much as 7 United States dollars per month (or 5% of monthly household cash expenditures) in coping costs, but would not reduce illness costs. Poorer, socially marginalized households benefited more, in alignment with programme objectives. CONCLUSION: Given the renewed interest in water, sanitation and hygiene outcomes, evaluating the economic benefits of environmental interventions by means of causal research is important for understanding the true value of such interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and quantify the economic benefits attributable to improvements in water supply and sanitation in rural India. METHODS: We combined propensity-score "pre-matching" and rich pre-post panel data on 9500 households in 242 villages located in four geographically different districts to estimate the economic benefits of a large-scale community demand-driven water supply programme in Maharashtra, India. We calculated coping costs and cost of illness by adding across several elements of coping and illness and then estimated causal impacts using a difference-in-difference strategy on the pre-matched sample. The pre-post design allowed us to use a difference-in-difference estimator to measure "treatment effect" by comparing treatment and control villages during both periods. We compared average household costs with respect to out-of-pocket medical expenses, patients' lost income, caregiving costs, time spent on collecting water, time spent on sanitation, and water treatment costs due to filtration, boiling, chemical use and storage. FINDINGS: Three years after programme initiation, the number of households using piped water and private pit latrines had increased by 10% on average, but no changes in hygiene-related behaviour had occurred. The behavioural changes observed suggest that the average household in a programme community could save as much as 7 United States dollars per month (or 5% of monthly household cash expenditures) in coping costs, but would not reduce illness costs. Poorer, socially marginalized households benefited more, in alignment with programme objectives. CONCLUSION: Given the renewed interest in water, sanitation and hygiene outcomes, evaluating the economic benefits of environmental interventions by means of causal research is important for understanding the true value of such interventions.
Authors: Lorna Fewtrell; Rachel B Kaufmann; David Kay; Wayne Enanoria; Laurence Haller; John M Colford Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Subhrendu K Pattanayak; Christine Poulos; Jui-Chen Yang; Sumeet R Patil; Kelly J Wendland Journal: J Water Health Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Subhrendu K Pattanayak; Jui-Chen Yang; Katherine L Dickinson; Christine Poulos; Sumeet R Patil; Ranjan K Mallick; Jonathan L Blitstein; Purujit Praharaj Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: A Rose; S Roy; V Abraham; G Holmgren; K George; V Balraj; S Abraham; J Muliyil; A Joseph; G Kang Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Amar Hamoudi; Marc Jeuland; Sarah Lombardo; Sumeet Patil; Subhrendu K Pattanayak; Shailesh Rai Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Soumya Balasubramanya; Alexander Pfaff; Lori Bennear; Alessandro Tarozzi; Kazi Matin Ahmed; Amy Schoenfeld; Alexander van Geen Journal: Environ Dev Econ Date: 2014-10
Authors: V E Reyes-Ortiz; W Calderón-Alicea; R Castillo; J J Cintrón-García; J J Cintrón-García; L Colón Cruz; A Hernández-Muñoz; I Irizarry-Pérez; I Lockward; C Neste-Laboy; M Ortíz-León; A Peréz-Homar; J Pérez; W Ramírez-López; L Rivera; D Scholz; M Soto-Ortíz; A Torres-García Journal: West Indian Med J Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 0.171
Authors: Paul C Adamson; Karl Krupp; Bhavana Niranjankumar; Alexandra H Freeman; Mudassir Khan; Purnima Madhivanan Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 3.295