Why Do Some Water Utilities Recycle More than Others? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis in New South Wales, Australia

Although the recycling of municipal wastewater can play an important role in water supply security and ecosystem protection, the percentage of wastewater recycled is generally low and strikingly variable. Previous research has employed detailed case studies to examine the factors that contribute to recycling success but usually lacks a comparative perspective across cases. In this study, 25 water utilities in New South Wales, Australia, were compared using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). This research method applies binary logic and set theory to identify the minimal combinations of conditions that are necessary and/or sufficient for an outcome to occur within the set of cases analyzed. The influence of six factors (rainfall, population density, coastal or inland location, proximity to users; cost recovery and revenue for water supply services) was examined for two outcomes, agricultural use and "heavy" (i.e., commercial/municipal/industrial) use. Each outcome was explained by two different pathways, illustrating that different combinations of conditions are associated with the same outcome. Generally, while economic factors are crucial for heavy use, factors relating to water stress and geographical proximity matter most for agricultural reuse. These results suggest that policies to promote wastewater reuse may be most effective if they target uses that are most feasible for utilities and correspond to the local context. This work also makes a methodological contribution through illustrating the potential utility of fsQCA for understanding the complex drivers of performance in water recycling.

Quality of life and quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST) in patients receiving dose-intensive or standard dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer

Quality of life (QL) is an important consideration when comparing adjuvant therapies for early breast cancer, especially if they differ substantially in toxicity. We evaluated QL and Q-TWiST among patients randomised to adjuvant dose-intensive epirubicin and cyclophosphamide administered with filgrastim and progenitor cell support (DI-EC) or standard-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy (SD-CT). We estimated the duration of chemotherapy toxicity (TOX), time without disease symptoms and toxicity (TWiST), and time following relapse (REL). Patients scored QL indicators. Mean durations for the three transition times were weighted with patient reported utilities to obtain mean Q-TWiST. Patients receiving DI-EC reported worse QL during TOX, especially treatment burden (month 3: P<0.01), but a faster recovery 3 months following chemotherapy than patients receiving SD-CT, for example, less coping effort (P<0.01). Average Q-TWiST was 1.8 months longer for patients receiving DI-EC (95% CI, -2.5 to 6.1). Q-TWiST favoured DI-EC for most values of utilities attached to TOX and REL. Despite greater initial toxicity, quality-adjusted survival was similar or better with dose-intensive treatment as compared to standard treatment. Thus, QL considerations should not be prohibitive if future intensive therapies show superior efficacy.

Egalitarianism under Earmark Constraints

Agents with single-peaked preferences share a resource coming from different suppliers; each agent is connected to only a subset of suppliers. Examples include workload balancing, sharing earmarked funds, and rationing utilities after a storm. Unlike in the one supplier model, in a Pareto optimal allocation agents who get more than their peak from underdemanded suppliers, coexist with agents who get less from overdemanded suppliers. Our Egalitarian solution is the Lorenz dominant Pareto optimal allocation. It treats agents with equal demands as equally as the connectivity constraints allow. Together, Strategyproofness, Pareto Optimality, and Equal Treatment of Equals, characterize our solution.