Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:33:56.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cooperative Versus Individual Approaches to Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater by Rural Residents in the Northeast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Deborah K. Klinko  and
Charles W. Abdalla
Deborah K. Klinko
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University
Charles W. Abdalla
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Abstract

Point-of-use/point-of-entry treatment can provide an affordable means for rural residents on private wells to remedy groundwater contamination. Cooperation among homeowners was hypothesized to be a means of further reducing treatment costs due to quantity discounts and avoidance of dealer mark-ups. Data obtained through a mail survey of water treatment firms was used to test this hypothesis. Individual and group purchase, installation and maintenance costs and manufacturer and dealer costs were compared using analysis of variance. Results indicate a cooperative treatment approach may provide benefits due to quantity discounts but little potential exists for savings via direct manufacturer purchase.

Type
Research Article
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , April 1989 , pp. 52 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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.)

Footnotes

Senior authorship is not assigned.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Donald Epp and Jill Findeis, and anonymous reviewers of the Journal. The article is published as Journal Series Article No. 8121 of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station. The research was funded by the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development and the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

Baier, J.H. “Long Island's Water Treatment Experience.” Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Paper presented at the Point-of-Use Water Quality Improvement Industry Regional Seminars and The Fourth Domestic Water Quality Symposium on “Point-of-Use Treatment and Its Implications,” Chicago, IL, December 1985.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
Klinko, D.K. An Economic Evaluation of Home Water Treatment Alternatives Available to Rural Residents Facing Ground Water Contamination. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1988.Google Scholar
Sarnat, C.L. A Sequential Decision Framework For Evaluating Groundwater Supply Alternatives Under Uncertainty. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
Stasko, G.A. “Point-of-Entry Activated Carbon Treatment: Lake Carmel Putnam County.” In Proceedings: Conference on Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water, US EPA Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, Report No. EPA/600/9-88/012, pp. 99–105, June 1988.Google Scholar