Abstract
Different methods for allocating the joint costs of water supply projects among users are compared on the basis of certain commonsense principles of equity. We contrast the separable costs‐remaining benefits (SCRB) method with simple proportional allocation schemes and more sophisticated methods from cooperative game theory, including the Shapley value and variants of the core. Advantages and disadvantages of the methods in practice are examined using a regional water supply system in Sweden. It is argued that these principles provide a useful framework for choosing intelligently among methods. The appropriateness of a method depends on the context, especially on the reliability of information about costs and demands. The conclusion is that there is no one best method, although from a normative standpoint the SCRB method may be one of the worst.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
