Turning around the least liveability: a cost–benefit framework for Dhaka

Turning around the least liveability: a cost–benefit framework for Dhaka

The aim of this study is to seek smart solutions to key socio-economic, environmental, and infrastructural issues facing Dhaka city, the capital of Bangladesh. Specifically, a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is employed to assess the suitability of selected intervention strategies for a liveable Dhaka city from the perspective of the society. This study investigates the following key research questions: (i) How can Dhaka, a rapidly growing city, become liveable (interventions)?; (ii) How much is the liveability worth (costs)?; (iii) What are the socio-economic, health, and environmental benefits of interventions (benefits)?; and (iv) Are the interventions worth undertaking (net benefit)?

The report findings are based on two focus group discussions and a number of key informant interviews in the study area, as well as on an extensive review of published documents. Economic analysis revealed that the benefit–cost ratio at 10% discount rate and internal rate of return of the project are 1.92 and 42%, respectively, which indicate the project is attractive, both financially and economically. However, this leaves policymakers, planners, development partners, and concerned citizens to make value judgment calls when interpreting these numbers. The results, which should be interpreted alongside the social and political imperatives of a rapidly growing megacity, suggest an immediate intervention to avoid any further deterioration of the environment and social structure.

The CBA findings are also used to assess the sensitivity of outcomes to identified risks and uncertainties. This sensitivity analysis will give policymakers an idea of the degree of uncertainty surrounding the intervention strategies and the significance of that uncertainty.
CBA should be considered as an aid to the debate on whether to invest in the improvement of environmental quality and public utility services, and the decision on whether the investment is in the public’s interest, not a decision itself. Socio-political imperatives and citizens’ willingness as well as readiness to participate in the intervention actions are a significant consideration in this research.