Impact Evaluation of Water Infrastructure Investments: Methods, Challenges and Demonstration From a Large‐Scale Urban Improvement in Jordan
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Impact evaluation (IE) of large infrastructure presents numerous challenges, and investments in urban piped water and sanitation are no exception. Here we present methods for more systematic assessment of the implications of such interventions, discussing tradeoffs between validity, relevance and practicality that arise from alternative approaches. Then, to more clearly illustrate the many issues that typically arise in such IEs, we draw on an example application in Zarqa, Jordan, where the Millennium Challenge Corporation invested about US$275 million to upgrade and extend piped water and sewer networks, as well as increase the capacity of the country's largest wastewater treatment plant. The theory of change for the intervention took a systems view of impacts: the project aimed to improve water supply to urban areas while maintaining flows to irrigators through enhanced wastewater reuse. The case adds valuable evidence on the impacts of large infrastructure investments and illustrates well the challenges of capturing spillovers, mitigating study contamination, maintaining statistical power, and determining overall welfare effects, in situations involving diverse market and nonmarket impacts. These limitations notwithstanding, the application highlights the high value of conducting IEs, and why applied researchers should not give up on pragmatic and interdisciplinary collaborations to evaluation in the face of complex interventions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.69 · Cited by 2,355 · see citing works
What's trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature
Roth, J., Sant’Anna, P. H. C., Bilinski, A., & Poe, J. (2023) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2023.03.008 · Cited by 2,027 · see citing works
Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to the ex post facto experiment.
Thistlethwaite, D. L., & Campbell, D. T. (1960) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0044319 · Cited by 1,469 · see citing works
The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews
Turner, R. M., Bird, S. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059202 · Cited by 672 · see citing works
Wolf, J., Hubbard, S., Brauer, M., Ambelu, A., Arnold, B. F., Bain, R., Bauza, V., Brown, J., Caruso, B. A., Clasen, T., et al. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)00937-0 · Cited by 377 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The latter are almost exclusively focused on health (Waddington et al., 2009; Wolf et al., 2022).”
BackgroundBroadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations
Stern, E., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R., & Befani, B. (2012) · doi:10.22163/fteval.2012.100 · Cited by 369 · see citing works
Reducing Violence by Transforming Neighborhoods: A Natural Experiment in Medellin, Colombia
Cerda, M., Morenoff, J. D., Hansen, B. B., Tessari Hicks, K. J., Duque, L. F., Restrepo, A., & Diez-Roux, A. V. (2012) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwr428 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Ercumen, A., Arnold, B. F., Kumpel, E., Burt, Z., Ray, I., Nelson, K., & Colford, J. M. (2015) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001892 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.69 · Cited by 2,355 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jeuland, M., Orgill‐Meyer, J., Morgan, S., Hudner, D., Pucilowski, M., Wyatt, A., Shafei, M., Cajka, J., & Albert, J.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Franklin & Marshall College (US)
- Mercy Corps (US)
- Social Impact (United States) (US)
- RTI International (US)
- Independent Consultant Aqaba Jordan
- Aquaya Institute San Anselmo CA USA
- Corresponding author
- Jeuland, Marc
- ORCID
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2023-06
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W4381245557
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 3.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Water Resources Research (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Millennium Challenge Corporation
- Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Water resources management and optimization
- Keywords
- impact evaluation, water infrastructure, wastewater treatment plants, water reuse, irrigation water supply, spillover effects, welfare effects, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Zarqa, theory of change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review