IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare06/137981.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Economic Analysis of Improved Water Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Alam, Khorshed
  • Rolfe, John
  • Donaghy, Peter

Abstract

The research reported in this paper is focused on the cost-effectiveness of intervention strategies to reduce pollution loads and improve water quality in South-east Queensland. Strategies considered include point and non-point source interventions. Predicted reductions in pollution levels were calculated for each action based on the expected population growth. The costs of the interventions included the full investment and annual running costs as well as planned public investment by the state agencies. The results show that the cost-effectiveness of strategies is likely to vary according to whether suspended sediments, nitrogen or phosphorus loads are being targeted.

Suggested Citation

  • Alam, Khorshed & Rolfe, John & Donaghy, Peter, 2006. "An Economic Analysis of Improved Water Quality," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 137981, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare06:137981
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.137981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/137981/files/2006_alam.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.137981?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garber, Alan M. & Phelps, Charles E., 1997. "Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Glenn Jenkins & Chun-Yan Kuo & Arnold C. Harberger, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Investment Decisions: Chapter 15 (Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis)," Development Discussion Papers 2011-15, JDI Executive Programs.
    2. Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2008. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1224-1236, September.
    3. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & G. Ardine de Wit & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2007. "Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 421-433, April.
    4. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    5. Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2013. "Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis and health care technology adoption," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 172-180.
    6. Amiram Gafni, 2006. "Economic Evaluation of Health-care Programmes: Is CEA Better than CBA?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 407-418, July.
    7. Mark Stabile & Sarah Thomson, 2014. "The Changing Role of Government in Financing Health Care: An International Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 480-518, June.
    8. Scott Johnson & Matthew Davis & Anna Kaltenboeck & Howard Birnbaum & ElizaBeth Grubb & Marcy Tarrants & Andrew Siderowf, 2011. "Early retirement and income loss in patients with early and advanced Parkinson’s disease," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 367-376, November.
    9. Alan M. Garber & Jonathan Skinner, 2008. "Is American Health Care Uniquely Inefficient?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
    10. Gandjour, Afschin & Chernyak, Nadja, 2011. "A new prize system for drug innovation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 170-177.
    11. Markossian, Talar W. & Calhoun, Elizabeth A., 2011. "Are breast cancer navigation programs cost-effective? Evidence from the Chicago Cancer Navigation Project," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 52-59, January.
    12. Richard H. Chapman & Marc Berger & Milton C. Weinstein & Jane C. Weeks & Sue Goldie & Peter J. Neumann, 2004. "When does quality‐adjusting life‐years matter in cost‐effectiveness analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 429-436, May.
    13. Cutler, David M., 2007. "The lifetime costs and benefits of medical technology," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1081-1100, December.
    14. Darius N. Lakdawalla & Charles E. Phelps, 2022. "A guide to extending and implementing generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness (GRACE)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 433-451, April.
    15. Phillip Dinh & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2006. "Nonparametric Statistical Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 576-588, June.
    16. Calcott, Paul, 2000. "Health care evaluation, utilitarianism and distortionary taxes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 719-730, September.
    17. Schneider, Udo & Zerth, Jürgen, 2008. "Improving prevention compliance through appropriate incentives," MPRA Paper 8280, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. repec:ilo:ilowps:300225 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Joel Thompson & Amir Abdolahi & Katia Noyes, 2013. "Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 455-469, June.
    20. Hoel, Michael, 2005. "Prioritizing public health expenditures when there is a private alternative," Memorandum 16/2005, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    21. Odejar, Maria & Baker, Rachel & Ryan, Mandy & Donalson, Cam & Bateman, Ian J. & Jones-Lee, M & Lancsar, Emily & Mason, Helen & Pinto Paredes, JL & Robinson, A & Shackley, P & Smith, R & Sugdem, R & Wi, 2010. "Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project," MPRA Paper 108869, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aare06:137981. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.