National versus location-specific environmental standards: a cost–benefit analysis of wastewater treatment standards in Israel

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Lavee
Keyword(s):  
Wastewater Treatment ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Environmental Standards ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Treatment Standards

Environmental cost–benefit analysis of decentralised wastewater treatment and re-use: a case study of rural Jordan

Water Policy ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nele Lienhoop ◽  
Emad K. Al-Karablieh ◽  
Amer Z. Salman ◽  
Jaime A. Cardona
Keyword(s):  
Wastewater Treatment ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Environmental Cost ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Urban Settlements ◽  
Flexible Adaptation ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Market Benefits

Decentralised wastewater treatment systems offer an opportunity to introduce wastewater treatment and generate irrigation water in places that are not connected to centralised treatment plants. The advantages of decentralised technologies include their capability to provide wastewater treatment infrastructure in remote and hilly rural communities and their flexible adaptation to fast-growing semi-urban settlements. In this study we investigate the costs and benefits of introducing decentralised wastewater treatment and re-use to two locations in Jordan. The cost–benefit analysis (CBA) used here differs from traditional CBA in that it includes non-market benefits for which monetary values are not readily available, in addition to market benefits. We elaborate on three valuation methods to monetise benefits associated with the environment, health and irrigation in agriculture. Our findings suggest that it is principally worthwhile to establish decentralised treatment technologies in remote areas.

Manipulating Transfers

2020 ◽  
pp. 167-176
Author(s):  
Michael A. Livermore ◽  
Richard L. Revesz
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Transfer Payment ◽  
Environmental Standards ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Transfer Payments ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Trump Administration

In addition to obscuring the costs of its deregulatory agenda—by ignoring or minimizing the health harms associated with repealing or weakening environmental standards—the Trump administration has used methodological tricks to exaggerate the benefits of its actions. One way it has done this is by characterizing certain transfers between two parties as a benefit to one, contravening established techniques of cost-benefit analysis going back decades. Transfer payments are not included in cost-benefit analyses because the amount of money leaving the hands of one party is equal to the amount reaching the hands of the other party. By mangling established approaches to cost-benefit analysis, the Trump administration is treating one side of a transfer payment as an impact of regulation while ignoring the other side. And it does so inconsistently: sometimes negative impacts to the federal Treasury are treated as costs and at other times as benefits.

Economic feasibility study for wastewater treatment: A cost–benefit analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 408 (20) ◽  
pp. 4396-4402 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Molinos-Senante ◽  
Francesc Hernández-Sancho ◽  
Ramón Sala-Garrido
Keyword(s):  
Wastewater Treatment ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Feasibility ◽  
Benefit Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document