OBJECTIVES: Allergic rhinitis due to ragweed pollen is characterized by rhinorrhea, itching, and nasal congestion. Methods of ragweed control, such as cutting and mowing, are important to reduce the atmospheric concentration of pollen, thus reducing the severity of AR symptoms and improving patients’ quality of life. The aim of this study was to assess the economic impact of an intensive concerted intervention mode (CIM) compared to a minimal intervention mode (MIM) in a Quebec provincial context. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed according to a societal perspective. A time horizon of one month was chosen, which correspond to the symptomatic period of AR due to ragweed pollen. CIM and MIM were applied in two comparable cities from Quebec. The target population was composed of people living in both cities, with a focus on patients suffering from AR related to ragweed pollen. Clinical data were obtained from the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and were converted into utility values using the method proposed by Keiding and Jorgenson. Costs considered in this economic evaluation were those necessary for the mobilization and sensitization of community sectors, equipment, and additional typical methods of ragweed control. RESULTS: RQLQ scores were obtained from 227 patients (106 for CIM and 121 for MIM). For the population where the CIM was adopted, total cost of interventions was CDN$60,603 and a gain of 10.15 QALYs was estimated. In the city with the MIM, there were no additional costs and a decrease of 0.40 QALY was observed. The incremental cost-utility ratio was estimated at CDN$5744/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation demonstrates that a CIM is a cost-effective strategy compared to a MIM. Results of this study support the adoption of intensive intervention programs in the control of AR due to ragweed pollen.