Review of the State of the Art in Analysis of the Economics of Water Resources Infrastructure

Author(s):  
Marc Jeuland

Water resources represent an essential input to most human activities, but harnessing them requires significant infrastructure. Such water control allows populations to cope with stochastic water availability, preserving uses during droughts while protecting against the ravages of floods. Economic analysis is particularly valuable for helping to guide infrastructure investment choices, and for comparing the relative value of so called hard and soft (noninfrastructure) approaches to water management. The historical evolution of the tools for conducting such economic analysis is considered. Given the multimillennial history of human reliance on water infrastructure, it may be surprising that economic assessments of its value are a relatively recent development. Owing to the need to justify the rapid deployment of major public-sector financing outlays for water infrastructure in the early 20th century, government agencies in the United States—the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation—were early pioneers in developing these applications. Their work faced numerous technical challenges, first addressed in the drafting of the cost-benefit norms of the “Green Book.” Subsequent methodological innovation then worked to address a suite of challenges related to nonmarket uses of water, stochastic hydrology, water systems interdependencies, the social opportunity cost of capital, and impacts on secondary markets, as well as endogenous sociocultural feedbacks. The improved methods that have emerged have now been applied extensively around the world, with applications increasingly focused on the Global South where the best infrastructure development opportunities remain today. The dominant tools for carrying out such economic analyses are simulation or optimization hydroeconomic models (HEM), but there are also other options: economy wide water-economy models (WEMs), sociohydrological models (SHMs), spreadsheet-based partial equilibrium cost-benefit models, and others. Each of these has different strengths and weaknesses. Notable innovations are also discussed. For HEMs, these include stochastic, fuzz, and robust optimization, respectively, as well as co-integration with models of other sectors (e.g., energy systems models). Recent cutting-edge work with WEMs and spreadsheet-based CBA models, meanwhile, has focused on linking these tools with spatially resolved HEMs. SHMs have only seen limited application to infrastructure valuation problems but have been useful for illuminating the paradox of flood management infrastructure increasing the incidence and severity of flood damages, and for explaining the co-evolution of water-based development and environmental concerns, which ironically then devalues the original infrastructure. Other notable innovations are apparent in multicriteria decision analysis, and in game-theoretic modeling of noncooperative water institutions. These advances notwithstanding, several issues continue to challenge accurate and helpful economic appraisal of water infrastructure and should be the subject of future investigations in this domain. These include better assessment of environmental and distributional impacts, incorporation of empirically based representations of costs and benefits, and greater attention to the opportunity costs of infrastructure. Existing tools are well evolved from those of a few decades ago, supported by enhancements in scientific understanding and computational power. Yet, they do appear to systematically produce inflated estimations of the net benefits of water infrastructure. Tackling existing shortcomings will require continued interdisciplinary collaboration between economists and scholars from other disciplines, to allow leveraging of new theoretical insights, empirical data analyses, and modeling innovations.

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mesud Adžemović ◽  
Mirjana Bartula ◽  
Jordan Aleksić

Economic analysis is the key requirement of EU Water Framework Directive. On a level of river basin area, economic analysis includes three dimensions: 1. economic characterization of water use: current and future projected economic importance of capacities and potentials of water resources; 2. program of measures for achieving good water status: cost-benefit analyses, cost efficiency analyses, cost scale and influence: and 3. water services price policies: evaluation of institutional alternatives for recovery of water services costs, including analysis of cost distribution. The analysis includes leveling of current and projected water resources data with costs and benefits of water services on the level of river basin area within local communities and integrated on sub-region level.


2020 ◽  
pp. 148-190
Author(s):  
Theodore M. Porter

This chapter traces the history of cost–benefit analysis in the United States bureaucracy from the 1920s until about 1960. It is not a story of academic research, but of political pressure and administrative conflict. Cost–benefit methods were introduced to promote procedural regularity and to give public evidence of fairness in the selection of water projects. Early in the century, numbers produced by the Army Corps of Engineers were usually accepted on its authority alone, and there was correspondingly little need for standardization of methods. About 1940, however, economic numbers became objects of bitter controversy, as the Corps was challenged by such powerful interests as utility companies and railroads. The really crucial development in this story was the outbreak of intense bureaucratic conflict between the Corps and other government agencies, especially the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Reclamation. The agencies tried to settle their feuds by harmonizing their economic analyses. When negotiation failed as a strategy for achieving uniformity, they were compelled to try to ground their makeshift techniques in economic rationality. On this account, cost–benefit analysis had to be transformed from a collection of local bureaucratic practices into a set of rationalized economic principles.


Author(s):  
Chi Iromuanya ◽  
Kathleen M. Hargiss ◽  
Caroline Howard

Existing approaches to risk management in construction procurement primarily dwell on strategies designed for commonly identifiable risk factors in typical project environments. Commonly identifiable risk factors would include too early or late material delivery - a condition typically ameliorated by implementing a Just In Time (JIT) plan; inferior construction materials typically mitigated by employing trusted vendors; or ineffective contractors primarily avoided by the use of experienced contractors. The purpose of this paper is to present a coherent model for procurement risk management for construction and infrastructure development projects within the context of dynamic project environments - complex, or chaotic. For the purpose of this study, a critical risk path activity is one in which a delay of activity completion not only leads to project delay, but does so in a manner that may be fatal to project or at best, far greater than the actual delay. The study incorporates observations and theory with practical application for improving initiatives by emergency infrastructure development response organizations such as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) in the United States, the NEMA (National Emergency Management Agency) in Nigeria, or ANDMA (Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority) etc. This study presents risk response plans aimed at improving the potential occurrence of positive risk aspects while reducing, or eliminating the same for negative risk occurrences. This study explored material, equipment, and skilled labor procurement strategies related to project risk management from the perspectives of scheduling, cost, and quality - three factors often referred to as the triple project constraints. It identified gaps within specific national and multinational organizations’ approaches, and provided detailed recommendations for process improvements from the procurement management perspective to ensure the potential for successful project outcomes in unstable project conditions.


Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shifflett ◽  
Newcomer-Johnson ◽  
Yess ◽  
Jacobs

Many older Midwestern cities of the United States are challenged by costly aging water infrastructure while working to revitalize urban areas. These cities developed much of their water infrastructure before the Clean Water Act became law and have struggled to mitigate contaminant loading to surface waters. An increasingly common approach to resolving these challenges is the integration of green infrastructure with gray infrastructure improvements to manage point and non-point source pollution. Stakeholder engagement and collaboration during green infrastructure planning can help address impairments and promote community involvement through the revitalization process. Mill Creek watershed in Cincinnati, OH, USA has seen improvement in watershed integrity indicators after being impaired for many decades by flashy hydrology, combined sewer overflows, and water quality degradation. A workshop was conducted to examine how integrated green and gray infrastructure has contributed to improvements in Mill Creek over the past several decades. This effort sought to examine internal and external factors that influence a multi-stakeholder watershed approach to planning, implementing, and evaluating green infrastructure techniques. Community investment and physical infrastructure, access to datasets, and skills and knowledge exchange were essential in improving use attainment in the Mill Creek. Strategic placement of green infrastructure has the potential to maximize water quality benefits and ecosystem services. However, green infrastructure deployment has been more opportunistic due to the diversity of stakeholder and decision maker interests. Future work should consider collaborative approaches to address scaling challenges and workforce development to maximize green infrastructure benefits.


Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 2416
Author(s):  
Adegboyega Adeniran ◽  
Katherine A. Daniell ◽  
Jamie Pittock

Water infrastructure development is key to attaining sustainable development, especially for water supply, sanitation and health, agricultural development, and energy production. However, sub-Saharan African countries face specific challenges around infrastructure financing, systemic and repeated malfunctioning, and decentralised infrastructure types. Using Nigeria as a case, this article aims to analyse historical water infrastructure development in Nigeria with a specific focus on dams and standpipes. Seven themes are discussed: infrastructure divisions; deprioritising water supply; political infrastructures; infrastructure failure and sustainability; infrastructure classification and typologies; optimal use of water resources and infrastructure; and a commentary on the future of water infrastructure development. The article concludes with policy and research suggestions for policymakers and other relevant stakeholders.


Water Policy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (S1) ◽  
pp. 58-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome Delli Priscoli ◽  
Eugene Stakhiv

Water resources planning and management has evolved in the United States through several distinct stages over the past two centuries, transitioning from a concern for inland waterways transportation to single purpose flood control and finally to multiple purpose large reservoirs. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) was always considered to be one of the main goals of these strategies. Reviewing history, this paper describes a US federal system that presents major challenges to coordinating water resources development and DRR, at both the watershed and metropolitan area scales. The paper reviews the performance of existing flood protection systems of three recent disasters. Federal, state and local responses to these major events have been mixed, as regulatory and management agencies with different evaluation frameworks and decision rules attempt to coordinate their respective responses. The cases revealed new vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the US DRR responses and planning, while contrasting the relative successes of long-term, strategic DRR planning and investments in the case of the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) system. The paper analyzes this history and recent cases primarily from the perspective of the US Army Corps of Engineers.


Fact Sheet ◽  
2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan H. Welch ◽  
Sharon A. Watkins ◽  
Dennis R. Helsel ◽  
Michael J. Focazio

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document