| Literature DB >> 27898017 |
John M Polimeni1, Ahmad Almalki2, Raluca I Iorgulescu3, Lucian-Liviu Albu4, Wendy M Parker5, Ray Chandrasekara6.
Abstract
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an example of a country that suffers from high water scarcity. Additionally, due to the economic drivers in the country, such as phosphate and potash extraction and pharmaceutical production, the little fresh water that remains is generally polluted. The infrastructure, often antiquated in urban areas and non-existent in rural areas, also contributes to poor water conditions and to the spread of waterborne diseases. This paper examines the socioeconomic factors that contribute to diarrhea and hepatitis A on a macro level in Jordan and discusses the public-policies that government officials could use to abate those problems. Ordinary least squares time series models are used to understand the macro-level variables that impact the incidence of these diseases in Jordan. Public health expenditure has a significant impact on reducing their incidence. Furthermore, investment in sanitation facilities in rural regions is likely to reduce the number of cases of hepatitis A. Perhaps the most surprising outcome is that importation of goods and services likely results in a decrease in cases of hepatitis A. However, income has little impact on the incidence of diarrhea and hepatitis A.Entities:
Keywords: ecological economics; economic growth; water pollution; water scarcity; waterborne diseases
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27898017 PMCID: PMC5201322 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13121181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Incidence rate per 100,000 people for diarrhea in Jordan (2000–2010). Source: Jordanian Ministry of Health data [33].
Figure 2Incidence rate per 100,000 people for hepatitis A in Jordan (2000–2010). Source: Jordanian Ministry of Health data [33].
Figure 3Life expectancy in Jordan (2000–2010). Source: Jordanian Ministry of Health data [33].
Description of the variables used.
| Measure of | Variable Name | Description | Expected Sign | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases of diarrhea | − | ||||
| Cases of hepatitis A | |||||
| GDP | + | + | |||
| GDP per capita | + | + | |||
| Gross National Income (GNI) | + | ||||
| Household final consumption expenditure | Household consumption increases the amount of environmental degradation through improperly disposed waste. | + | |||
| Imports of goods and services | Imports are likely to reduce the level of domestic environmental degradation from production. | − | |||
| Health expenditure per capita | − | − | + | ||
| Out-of-pocket health expenditure | Percentage of GDP that incorporates any household payment to health practitioners, pharmaceutical supplies, therapeutic products, and all other healthcare goods and services [ | + | + | − | |
| Private health expenditure | Percentage of GDP that incorporates all health-related out-of-pocket spending and private insurance costs [ | − | − | + | |
| Public health expenditure | Percentage of total health spending on government disbursements for healthcare [ | − | − | + | |
| Percentage of rural population with access to sanitation facilities | − | − | |||
| Percentage of urban population with access to sanitation facilities | + | ||||
| Total population | + | + | |||
| Rural population growth | + | + | |||
| Urban population growth | + | + | |||
| Percentage of population female | − | + | |||
−: Negative relationship; +: Positive relationship.
Factors influencing the number of cases of diarrhea in Jordan (years 2000–2010).
| Variable | Model D1 | Model D2 | Model D3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| −1746.66 | −7127.84 | −6792.25 | |
| (3704.60) | (4379.13) | (3620.56) | |
| 170,581.40 * | 146,327.50 *** | 186,263.80 *** | |
| (82,167.66) | (42,639.89) | (49,460.77) | |
| −222,340.30 * | −160,105.20 * | −233,076.40 ** | |
| (91,438.25) | (79,550.51) | (67,637.01) | |
| 35.52 * | |||
| (14.42) | |||
| −332.34 ** | |||
| (97.24) | |||
| 2546.85 *** | |||
| (622.46) | |||
| 0.000005 ** | |||
| (0.000002) | |||
| −8512.22 ** | |||
| (2698.83) | |||
| −36,546.60 ** | |||
| (12,114.13) | |||
| 0.697 | 0.847 | 0.854 | |
| 0.454 | 0.724 | 0.737 |
Note: ***, **, and * denote statistical significance at the 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10 levels, respectively; standard errors in parentheses. Source: Calculated based on Eviews software.
Factors influencing the number of cases of hepatitis A in Jordan (years 2000–2010).
| Variable | Model HA1 | Model HA2 | Model HA3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| −3563.58 * | 1005.06 ** | 155.13 | |
| (1465.48) | (372.60) | (196.58) | |
| −2402.86 ** | |||
| (766.14) | |||
| 2507.17 * | |||
| (1064.51) | |||
| −3627.44 * | |||
| (1785.16) | |||
| −4539.09 ** | −2178.33 | ||
| (1782.59) | (1081.93) | ||
| −0.000000233 * | −0.000000283 ** | ||
| (0.00000008) | (0.00000008) | ||
| 0.0000003 ** | |||
| (0.0000001) | |||
| 0.000000392 ** | |||
| (0.0000001) | |||
| 33.44 * | |||
| (15.97) | |||
| 0.03 * | |||
| (0.012) | |||
| −130.72 * | |||
| (58.11) | |||
| −498.78 * | |||
| (205.64) | |||
| 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.80 | |
| 0.48 | 0.51 | 0.56 |
Note: ** and * denote statistical significance at the 0.05 and 0.10 levels, respectively; standard errors in parentheses. Source: Calculated based on Eviews software.
Factors influencing the incidence rate of hepatitis A in Jordan (years 2000–2010).
| Variable | Model IRHA |
|---|---|
| 2.48 ** | |
| (0.82) | |
| −10.08 * | |
| (3.89) | |
| −0.000000005 ** | |
| (0.000000002) | |
| 0.000000007 ** | |
| (0.000000002) | |
| −40.63 *** | |
| (0.92) | |
| −2.50 ** | |
| (21.72) | |
| 0.813 | |
| 0.581 |
Note: ***, **, and * denote statistical significance at the 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10 levels, respectively; standard errors in parentheses. Source: Calculated based on Eviews software. IRHA: Incidence of hepatitis A.
Factors influencing life expectancy in Jordan (2000–2010).
| Variable | Model LE1 | Model LE2 | Model LE3 | Model LE4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.147 *** | 0.001 | 0.159 *** | 0.154 *** | |
| (0.005) | (0.052) | (0.010) | (0.007) | |
| −0.19 *** | −0.25 *** | −0.23 *** | ||
| (0.030) | (0.049) | (0.035) | ||
| −0.00016 * | −0.00014 | |||
| (0.00008) | (0.00007) | |||
| 0.25 * | 0.23 * | |||
| (0.12) | (0.10) | |||
| −0.00001 ** | −0.00004 * | |||
| (0.000004) | (0.00002) | |||
| 0.0000004 ** | ||||
| (0.0000001) | ||||
| −0.002 * | ||||
| (0.0005) | ||||
| 0.0000009 * | ||||
| (0.0000003) | ||||
| −0.00002 * | ||||
| (0.000009) | ||||
| 0.015 *** | ||||
| (0.004) | ||||
| 0.000000000007 * | ||||
| (0.000000000001) | ||||
| 0.899 | 0.910 | 0.922 | 0.934 | |
| 0.848 | 0.837 | 0.860 | 0.881 |
Note: ***, **, and * denote statistical significance at the 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10 levels, respectively; standard errors in parentheses. Source: Calculated based on Eviews software.