Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
EcoHealth
Published in: EcoHealth 4/2014

01-12-2014 | Original Contribution

Economic Feasibility Study for Improving Drinking Water Quality: A Case Study of Arsenic Contamination in Rural Argentina

Authors: María Molinos-Senante, Alejo Perez Carrera, Francesc Hernández-Sancho, Alicia Fernández-Cirelli, Ramón Sala-Garrido

Published in: EcoHealth | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Economic studies are essential in evaluating the potential external investment support and/or internal tariffs available to improve drinking water quality. Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is a useful tool to assess the economic feasibility of such interventions, i.e. to take some form of action to improve the drinking water quality. CBA should involve the market and non-market effects associated with the intervention. An economic framework was proposed in this study, which estimated the health avoided costs and the environmental benefits for the net present value of reducing the pollutant concentrations in drinking water. We conducted an empirical application to assess the economic feasibility of removing arsenic from water in a rural area of Argentina. Four small-scale methods were evaluated in our study. The results indicated that the inclusion of non-market benefits was integral to supporting investment projects. In addition, the application of the proposed framework will provide water authorities with more complete information for the decision-making process.
Footnotes
1
According to the UNDP (2012), improved sources are a piped household water connection located inside the user’s dwelling, plot, or yard, public taps or standpipes, tube wells or boreholes, protected dug wells, protected springs, or rainwater collection. Unimproved drinking water sources are unprotected dug wells, unprotected springs, carts with small tanks/drums, surface water (rivers, dams, lakes, ponds, streams, canals, irrigation channels), and bottled water.
 
2
Externality refers to any consequence (positive or negative) of a purchase or use decision by one set of parties on others who did not have a choice and whose interests were not taken into account.
 
3
Many reports and books have been published describing these methods. For more information, see Alberini and Kahn (2006) or Carson (2011).
 
Literature
Adamowick W, Dupont D, Krupnick A, Zhanj, J (2011) Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: an analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 61: 213–226.CrossRef
Ahmad J, Goldar B, Misra S (2005). Value of arsenic-free drinking water to rural households in Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Management 74: 173–185.CrossRefPubMed
A Alberini, J Kahn (2006) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK.CrossRef
Almansa C, Martínez-Paz JM (2011). What weight should be assigned to future environmental impacts? A probabilistic cost benefit analysis using recent advances on discounting. Science of the Total Environment 409: 1305–1314.CrossRefPubMed
Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Liekens I, Navrud S, De Nocker L, Sceponaviciute R, Semeniene D (2011). Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics 50: 365-387.CrossRef
Bateman IJ, Cole MA, Georgiou S, Hadley, DJ (2006). Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: A case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. Journal of Environmental Management 79: 221-231.CrossRefPubMed
Bonilla M, Casasús T, Medal A, Sala R (2004). An efficiency analysis with tolerance of the Spanish Port System. International Journal of Transport Economics XXXI (3): 379-400.
Bradley CJ, Yabroff KR, Dahman B, Fener EJ, Mariotto A, Brown ML (2008). Productivity costs of cancer mortality in the United States: 2000-2020. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 100 (24): 1763-1770.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
Bundschuh J, Farías B, Martin R, Storniolo A, Bhattacharva P, Cortes J, Bonorino G, Albouy R (2004). Groundwater arsenic in the Chaco-Pampean Plain, Argentina: Case study from Robles county, Santiago del Estero Province. Applied Geochemistry 19 (2): 231 – 243.CrossRef
Calhoun EA, Bennett CL (2003). Evaluating the total costs of cancer: the Northwestern University costs of Cancer Program. Oncology 17 (1): 109-114.PubMed
Carson RT (2011). Contingent valuation. A comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.CrossRef
Castro de Esparza ML (2006) Removal of arsenic from drinking water and soil bioremediation. International Congress Natural Arsenic in Groundwaters of Latin America, Mexico City, 20–24 June, 2006
Chang S, Long SR, Kutikova L, Bowman L, Finley D, Crown WH, Bennett CL (2004). Estimating the cost of cancer: results on the basis of claims data analyses for cancer patients diagnosed with seven types of cancer during 1999 to 2000. Journal of Clinical Oncology 22 (17): 3524-3530.CrossRefPubMed
Claesson M, Fagerberg J (2003) Arsenic in groundwater of Santiago del Estero—sources, mobility patterns and remediation with natural materials. Master Thesis, Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, KTH, Stockholm, Sweeden, TRITA-LWREX-03-05
Dupont DP, Jahan N (2012). Defensive spending on tap water substitutes: The value of reducing perceived health risks. Journal of Water and Health 10 (1): 56–68.CrossRefPubMed
Dutta V, Chander S, Srivastava L (2005). Public support for water supply improvements: Empirical evidence from unplanned settlements of Delhi, India. The journal of Environment Development 14: 439 – 462.CrossRef
Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CA, Yaisawarng S (1993). Derivation of shadow prices for undesirable outputs: a distance function approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 75 (2): 374 – 380.CrossRef
Francisca FM, Carro Pérez ME (2009). Assessment of natural arsenic in groundwater in Cordoba Province, Argentina. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 31 (6): 673 – 682.CrossRefPubMed
Gómez A (2008) Chronic arseniasis in El Zapote, Nicaragua. In: Bundschuh J, Armienta MA, Birkle P, Bhattacharya P, Matschullat J, Mukherjee AB (eds). Natural arsenic in groundwaters of Latin America. Taylor and Francis Group, London.
Gomez ML, Blarasin MT, Martínez DE (2009). Arsenic and fluoride in a loess aquifer in the central area of Argentina. Environmental Geology 57 (1): 143 – 155.CrossRef
Gordon LG, Eckermann S, Hirst NG, Watson DI, Mayne GC, Fahey P, Whiteman DC (2011). Healthcare resource use and medical costs for the management of oesophageal cancer. British Journal of Surgery 98 (11): 1589-1598.CrossRefPubMed
Hakes JK, Viscusi WK (2007). Automobile seatbelt usage and the value of statistical life. Southern Economic Journal 73 (3): 659-676.
Haller L, Hutton G, Bartram J (2007). Estimating the costs and health benefits of water and sanitation improvements at global level. Journal of Water and Health 5 (4): 467-480.CrossRefPubMed
Hanley N, Colombo S, Tinch D, Black A, Aftab A (2006). Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the water framework directive: are benefits transferable?. European Review of Agricultural Economics 33 (3): 391-413.CrossRef
Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2010). Economic valuation of environmental benefits from wastewater treatment processes: An empirical approach for Spain. Science of the Total Environment 408: 953 – 957.CrossRefPubMed
HM Treasury (2003) The green book appraisal and evaluation in Central Government, London: TSO.
Hopenhayn C (2006). Arsenic in drinking water: impact on human health. Elements 2: 103 – 107.CrossRef
Hopenhayn-Rich C, Biggs ML, Fuchs A, Bergoglio R, Tello EE, Nicolli H, Smith AH (1996). Bladder cancer mortality associated with arsenic in drinking water in Argentina. Epidemiology 7 (2): 117 – 124.CrossRefPubMed
Hopenhayn-Rich C, Biggs ML, Fuchs A, Smith AH (1998). Lung and kidney cancer mortality associated with arsenic in drinking water in Córdoba, Argentina. International Journal of Epidemiology 27: 561 – 569.CrossRefPubMed
Hunter RP, Pond K, Jagals P, Cameron J (2009). An assessment of the costs and benefits of interventions aimed at improving rural community water supplies in developed countries. Science of the Total Environment 407: 3681-3685.CrossRefPubMed
Hutton G, Haller L, Bartram J (2007). Global cost–benefit analysis of water supply and sanitation interventions. Journal of Water and Health 5 (4): 481-501.CrossRefPubMed
Johnston RJ, Thomassin PJ (2010). Willingness to pay for water quality improvements in the United States and Canada: considering possibilities for international meta-analysis and benefits transfer. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39 (1): 114-131.
Kaplow L, Weisbach D (2011). Discount rates, social judgments, individuals´ risk preferences, and uncertainty. Journal of Risk Uncertainty 42 (2): 125-143.CrossRef
Kim JH, Kim SH, Joo JS, Lee KS (2012). Factors associated with medical cost among patients with terminal cancer in hospice units. Journal of Palliative Care 28 (1): 5-12.PubMed
Litter MI, Alarcón-Herrera MT, Arenas MJ, Armienta M, Avilés M, Cáceres RE, Cipriani HN, Cornejo L, Dias LE, Fernández Cirelli A, Farfán EM, Garrido S, Lorenzo L, Morgada ME, Olmos-Márquez MA, Pérez-Carrera A (2012). Small-scale and household methods to remove arsenic from water for drinking purposes in Latin America. Science of the Total Environment 429: 107 – 122.CrossRefPubMed
Litter MI, Bundschuh J (2010) Situación del arsénico en la Región Iberoaméricana. Posibles acciones articuladas e integradas para el abatimiento del arsénico en zonas aisladas. CYTED (In Spanish)
Litter MI, Morgada ME, Bundschuh J (2010). Possible treatments for arsenic removal in Latin American waters for consumption. Environmental Pollution 158: 1105 – 1118.CrossRefPubMed
Lizama AK, Fletcher TD, Sun G (2011). Removal processes for arsenic in constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 84 (8): 1032 – 1043.CrossRef
Macioch T, Hermanowski T (2011). The indirect costs of cancer related absenteeism in the workplace in Poland. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 53 (12): 1472-1477.CrossRefPubMed
Maddison D, Catala-Luque R, Pearce D (2005). Valuing the arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh. Environmental & Resource Economics 31: 459-476.CrossRef
Martin-Ortega J, Brouwer R, Ojea E, Berbel J (2012). Benefit transfer and spatial heterogeneity of preferences for water quality improvements. Journal of Environmental Management 106: 22-29.CrossRefPubMed
McClintock TR, Chen Y, Bundschuh J, Oliver JT, Navoni J, Olmos V, Lepori EV, Ahsan H, Parvez F (2012) Arsenic exposure in Latin America: Biomarkers, risk assessments and related health effects. Science of the Total Environment 429: 76 – 91.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
Molinos-Senante M, Garrido-Baserba M, Reif R, Hernández-Sancho F, Poch M (2012) Assessment of wastewater treatment plant design for small communities: Environmental and economic aspects. Science of the Total Environment 427 – 428: 11-18.CrossRefPubMed
Molinos-Senante, M., Hernández-Sancho, F. and Sala-Garrido, R. 2011a. Cost–benefit analysis of water-reuse projects for environmental purposes: A case study for Spanish wastewater treatment plants. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 3091 – 3097.CrossRefPubMed
Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2011b). Assessing disproportionate costs to achieve good ecological status of water bodies in a Mediterranean river basin. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 13: 2091–2101.CrossRefPubMed
Montamat & Asociados (2012) Informe mensual de precios de la energía. Carta Política 70: 1–13 (In Spanish)
Muthke T, Holm-Mueller K (2004). National and international benefit transfer testing with a rigorous test procedure. Environmental & Resource Economics 29: 323 – 336.CrossRef
Narrod C, Zinsstag J, Tiongco M (2012). A one health framework for estimating the economic costs of zoonotic diseases on society. EcoHealth 9: 150-162.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
Pearce J, Albritton S, Grant G, Steed G, Zelenika I (2012). A new model for enabling innovation in appropriate technology for sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy8 (2): 42-53.
Pérez A (2006) Evaluación de elementos traza en agua, suelo, forraje y leche. PhD Thesis. Centros de Estudios Transdisciplinarios del Agua. Universidad de Buenos Aires (In Spanish)
Puig I, Freire J (2011) Beneficios económicos de una mayor calidad del agua de abastecimiento en el consumo de agua envasada de los hogares (Economic benefits of the water quality supply in terms of botteled water consumption in households). Tecnología del Agua 31 (334): 60 – 65 (In Spanish).
Pulido-Velazquez M, Paredes-Arquiola J, Pulido-Velazquez D, Solera-Solera A, Lozano-Sandoval G, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R, del Saz-Salazar S, Molinos-Senante M (2008) Elaboración de una metodología y herramientas para la determinación de un programa de medidas destinadas al cumplimiento de la Directiva Marco del Agua. Estudio piloto de la cuenca del río Serpis. Working paper Jucar River Basin Authority (In Spanish)
Ready R, Navrud S (2006). International benefit transfer: methods and validity. Ecological Economics, 60 (2), 429 – 434.CrossRef
Roman HA, Hammitt JK, Walsh TL, Stieb DM (2012). Expert elicitation of the value per statistical life in an air pollution context. Risk Analysis; 32 (12): 2133-2151.CrossRefPubMed
Sarmiento M, Carignano G (2011) Rol del recurso agua en un sistema de pagos por servicios ambientales en Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Congreso Internacional Pago por Servicios Ambientales. Ixtapán de la Sal, Estado de México (In Spanish)
Steinmaus C, Yuan Y, Kalman D, Rey OA, Skibola CF, Dauphine D, et al. (2010). Individual differences in arsenic metabolism and lung cancer in a case–control study in Cordoba, Argentina. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 247: 138–145.CrossRefPubMed
Tsai WJ, Liu JT, Hammitt JK (2011). Aggregation biases in estimates of the value per statistical life: evidence from longitudinal matched worker -firm data in Taiwan. Environmental and Resource Economics 49 (3): 425-443.CrossRef
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2006) Human Development Report, 2006. Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2012) Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation 2012 Update
Um MJ, Kwak SJ, Kim TY (2002). Estimating willingness to pay for improved drinking water quality using averting behavior method with perception measure. Environmental and Resource Economics 21 (3): 287 – 302.CrossRef
Ward FA (2012). Cost–benefit and water resources policy: a survey. Water Policy 14 (2): 250-280.CrossRef
WHO (2003) Domestic Water Quantity, Service Level and Health, Geneva
Metadata
Title
Economic Feasibility Study for Improving Drinking Water Quality: A Case Study of Arsenic Contamination in Rural Argentina
Authors
María Molinos-Senante
Alejo Perez Carrera
Francesc Hernández-Sancho
Alicia Fernández-Cirelli
Ramón Sala-Garrido
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
EcoHealth / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1612-9202
Electronic ISSN: 1612-9210
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-014-0948-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

EcoHealth 4/2014 Go to the issue

Original Contribution

Isolation and Molecular Characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from Humans and Cattle in Namwala District, Zambia

Original Contribution

Merging Economics and Epidemiology to Improve the Prediction and Management of Infectious Disease

Original Contribution

Environmental Correlates of Mental Health Measures for Women in Western Australia

Original Contribution

Chlamydiosis in British Garden Birds (2005–2011): Retrospective Diagnosis and Chlamydia psittaci Genotype Determination

Cover Essay

West Africa, 2014

Book Review

A Scientist’s Dilemma in Wartime