Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:42:23.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choosing Alternatives to Contaminated Groundwater Supplies: A Sequential Decision Framework Under Uncertainty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Carol L. Sarnat ,
Cleve E. Willis  and
Carolyn R. Harper
Carol L. Sarnat
Affiliation:
St. Paul. Minnesota
Cleve E. Willis
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts. Amherst
Carolyn R. Harper
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts. Amherst
Get access

Abstract

In increasing numbers, communities that rely on groundwater for drinking supplies have discovered contamination from agricultural pesticides and herbicides, road salt, underground fuel storage, and septic systems. A variety of short- and long-run remedies are available with highly uncertain outcomes. An appropriate technique for solving a benefit-cost problem of this type is a sequential decision framework using stochastic dynamic programming procedures for solution. The approach is illustrated here by means of an application to the problem of the recent contamination of the groundwater of Whately, Massachusetts by the agricultural fumigant EDB and the pesticide aldicarb.

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , October 1987 , pp. 102 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berk, A., Paringer, L. and Mushkin, S. “The Economic Cost of Illness Fiscal 1975.” Medical Care. 16 (1978):785–790.Google Scholar
Brown, H. and Rowan, C. Summary of the Environmental Health Effects of Ethylene Dibromide. Document No. 1, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts. April 4, 1984.Google Scholar
Coffin & Richardson, Inc. and BSC Engineering. Whately Water Study. Prepared for the town of Whately, Massachusetts, Board of Selectmen, January, 1985.Google Scholar
Frankel, M. “Hazard, Opportunity and the Valuation of Life.” Preliminary Report, Department of Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1979.Google Scholar
Raucher, R. L. “A Conceptual Framework for Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection.” Water Resources Research. 19 (1983):320–326.Google Scholar
Rausser, G. C. and Dean, G. W. “Uncertainty and Decision Making in Water Resources.” In California Water, Seckler, D., ed., 1971, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sarnat, C. L., Willis, C. E. and Allen, P. G. A Sequential Decision Framework for Evaluating Groundwater Supply Alternatives Under Uncertainty. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin Number 711, 1986.Google Scholar
Sharefkin, M. F., Shechter, M. and Kneese, A. V. “Impacts, Costs, and Techniques for Mitigation of Contaminated Groundwater.” Water Resources Research. 20 (1984):1771–1783.Google Scholar
Shechter, M. “An Anatomy of a Groundwater Contamination Episode.” Journal of Environmental and Economic Management. 12 (1985):72–88.Google Scholar
Willis, C. E. “Impact of Solution's Assessing Impacts of Northeast Issues.” Conference Proceedings, Workshop on Technology Assessment, NSF, Burlington, Vermont. December, 1976.Google Scholar