Estimating the economic burden from illnesses associated with recreational coastal water pollution - a case study in Orange County, California

University of California, Riverside, Riverside, California, United States
Journal of Environmental Management (Impact Factor: 3.19). 08/2005; 76(2):95-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.017
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A cost-of-illness framework was applied to health and income data to quantify the health burden from illnesses associated with exposure to polluted recreational marine waters. Using data on illness severity due to exposure to polluted coastal water and estimates of mean annual salaries and medical costs (adjusted to 2001 values) for residents of Orange County, California, we estimated that the economic burden per gastrointestinal illness (GI) amounts to 36.58 dollars, the burden per acute respiratory disease is 76.76 dollars, the burden per ear ailment is 37.86 dollars, and the burden per eye ailment is 27.31 dollars. These costs can become a substantial public health burden when millions of exposures per year to polluted coastal waters result in hundreds of thousands of illnesses. For example, exposures to polluted waters at Orange County's Newport and Huntington Beaches were estimated to generate an average of 36,778 GI episodes per year. At this GI illness rate, one can also expect that approximately 38,000 more illness episodes occurred per year of other types, including respiratory, eye, and ear infections. The combination of excess illnesses associated with coastal water pollution resulted in a cumulative public health burden of 3.3 million dollars per year for these two beaches. This paper introduces a public health cost variable that can be applied in cost-benefit analyses when evaluating pollution abatement strategies.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper reviews recent developments in cost–benefit analysis for water policy researchers who wish to under-stand the applications of economic principles to inform emerging water policy debates. The cost–benefit framework can provide a comparison of total economic gains and losses resulting from a proposed water policy. Cost–benefit analysis can provide decision-makers with a comparison of the impacts of two or more water policy options using methods that are grounded in time-tested economic principles. Economic efficiency, measured as the difference between added benefits and added costs, can inform water managers and the public of the economic impacts of water programs to address peace, development, health, the environment, climate and poverty. Faced by limited resources, cost–benefit analysis can inform policy choices by summarizing trade-offs involved in designing, applying, or reviewing a wide range of water programs. The data required to con-duct a cost–benefit analysis are often poor but the steps needed to carry out that analysis require posing the right questions.
    Water Policy 01/2012; 14(2). DOI:10.2166/wp.2011.021 · 0.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This analysis compares three game theory scenarios of how transboundary water institutions facilitate sovereign country management of transboundary water pollution along international borders of North America through bearing pollution abatement costs, sharing water monitoring responsibility and formal decision-making for pollution control. The three scenarios include a noncooperation game from an earlier period of unilateral decision-making, a cooperation game with water monitoring and information sharing for decisions, and a Stackelberg game with formal financial channels for one country separate from decisions for wastewater pollution reduction of each country. A numerical comparison of costs, damages and pollution levels for each scenario evolves with data from the US–Mexico border. Results show total costs and damages are minimized at $13,100,000 through cooperation, with the Stackelberg game at the next highest costs and damages for the steady state at $13,300,000. The Stackelberg solution improves considerably the situation for both the US and Mexico compared to the Nash Equilibrium (NE) where total steady costs and damages are $18,700,000. Cost minimization occurs as the US can finance pollution abatement in Mexico in the Stackelberg case cheaper than domestically to reduce damages. A sensitivity analysis explores changes in abatement cost financing and size of transboundary pollution. The divergence between the noncooperative independent action game and the Stackelberg game grows, while the Stackelberg solution continues to stay close to the cooperative solution. Solution strategies with increased wastewater pollution levels show that if wastewater management efforts are delayed without particular coordination from transboundary institutions in a waterway, pollution stock can grow profusely along with abatement cost and damages.
    01/2013; 1:20–35. DOI:10.1016/j.wre.2013.03.005

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 16, 2014