Main Article Content
A cost-benefit analysis of the Working for Water Programme on selected sites in South Africa
Abstract
This conclusion is subject to three qualifications. The first is that more work remains to be done on the evaluation of the nonwater benefits. Known non-water benefits, like fire damage reduction and preservation of biodiversity were not included in the calculations. The second qualification is that at lower discount rates, for instance 5%, the Kouga project is efficient. The third qualification is that if 30% cost savings could be achieved and a discount rate of 5% be employed, both the projects on the Kouga and Tsitsikamma sites will become efficient. These two projects are being run in catchments which serve areas where high consumptive demand exists.
WaterSA Vol.30 (2) 2004: 143-152