Application of the WFD cost proportionality principle to diffuse pollution mitigation: a case study for Scottish Lochs.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to deliver good ecological status (GES) for Europe's waters. It prescribes the use of economic principles, such as derogation from GES on grounds of disproportionate costs of mitigation. This paper proposes an application of the proportionality principle to mitigation of phosphorus (P) pollution of 544 Scottish lochs at national and local water body scales. P loading estimates were derived from a national diffuse pollution screening tool. For 293 of these lochs (31% of the loch area), GES already occurred. Mitigation cost-effectiveness was assessed using combined mitigation cost curves for managed grassland, rough grazing, arable land, sewage and septic tank sources. These provided sufficient mitigation (92% of national P load) for GES to be achieved on another 31% of loch area at annualised cost of £2.09 m/y. Mitigation of the residual P loading preventing other lochs achieving GES was considered by using a "mop-up" cost of £200/kg P (assumed cost effectiveness of removal of P directly from lochs), leading to a total cost of £189 m/y. Lochs were ranked by mitigation costs per loch area to give a national scale marginal mitigation cost curve. A published choice experiment valuation of WFD targets for Scottish lochs was used to estimate marginal benefits at national scale and combined with the marginal cost curve. This gave proportionate costs of £5.7 m/y leading to GES in 72% of loch area. Using national mean marginal benefits with a scheme to estimate changes in individual loch value with P loading gave proportionate costs of £25.6 m/y leading to GES in 77% of loch area (491 lochs).

[1]  H. ApSimon,et al.  Mitigating diffuse phosphorus transfer from agriculture according to cost and efficiency. , 2009, Journal of environmental quality.

[2]  R. Flower,et al.  Matching diatom assemblages in lake sediment cores and modern surface sediment samples: the implications for lake conservation and restoration with special reference to acidified systems , 1997, Hydrobiologia.

[3]  R. Adams,et al.  Improving the Cost‐Effectiveness of Ecosystem Management: An Application to Waterfowl Production , 2007 .

[4]  N. Hanley,et al.  Cost-benefit analysis and the water framework directive in Scotland. , 2006, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[5]  P. Ferraro,et al.  Optimizing the Riparian Buffer: Harold Brook in the Skaneateles Lake Watershed, New York , 2002, Land Economics.

[6]  Cost curve assessment of phosphorus mitigation options relevant to UK agriculture , 2003 .

[7]  B. Haggard,et al.  Critical evaluation of the implementation of mitigation options for phosphorus from field to catchment scales. , 2009, Journal of environmental quality.

[8]  M. Aresti,et al.  Investigation of regulatory efficiency with reference to the EU Water Framework Directive: an application to Scottish agriculture , 2009 .

[9]  Julio Berbel,et al.  Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the Water Framework Directive. , 2010, The Science of the total environment.

[10]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[11]  Stephen R Carpenter,et al.  Multiple states in river and lake ecosystems. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[12]  Zachary M Easton,et al.  Modeling watershed-scale effectiveness of agricultural best management practices to reduce phosphorus loading. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[13]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions , 2005 .

[14]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[15]  R. Bissoli,et al.  Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. , 2008 .

[16]  Paul J. A. Withers,et al.  PSYCHIC – A process-based model of phosphorus and sediment mobilisation and delivery within agricultural catchments. Part 1: Model description and parameterisation , 2008 .

[17]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[18]  G. Heckrath,et al.  International phosphorus workshop: diffuse phosphorus loss to surface water bodies--risk assessment, mitigation options, and ecological effects in river basins. , 2009, Journal of environmental quality.

[19]  Richard T. Cooper,et al.  Spatial and temporal dynamics of stream water particulate and dissolved N, P and C forms along a catchment transect, NE Scotland , 2008 .

[20]  D. Kay,et al.  Analysing the Agricultural Costs and Non‐market Benefits of Implementing the Water Framework Directive , 2006 .

[21]  A quality classification for management of Scottish standing waters , 1999 .

[22]  Jan Köhler,et al.  Lake responses to reduced nutrient loading - an analysis of contemporary long-term data from 35 case studies , 2005 .

[23]  G. Douglas,et al.  Application of PhoslockTM, an innovative phosphorus binding clay, to two Western Australian waterways: preliminary findings , 2003, Hydrobiologia.

[24]  Francesc Hernández-Sancho,et al.  The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. , 2009, The Science of the total environment.

[25]  Roger Pierrard,et al.  Cost-efficient choice of measures in agriculture to reduce the nitrogen load flowing from the Danube River into the Black Sea An analysis for Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania , 2008 .

[26]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. , 2006, Journal of environmental management.

[27]  J. Martin-Ortega,et al.  Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive , 2011 .

[28]  J. Stemplewski,et al.  Integrative socio‐economic planning of measures in the context of the water framework directive , 2008 .

[29]  K. Glenk,et al.  Public preferences for water quality improvements: implications for the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Scotland , 2011 .

[30]  Bill Slee,et al.  A review on cost-effectiveness analysis of agri-environmental measures related to the EU WFD: Key issues, methods, and applications , 2011 .

[31]  R. Carson,et al.  The Value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water , 1993 .

[32]  Brian Kronvang,et al.  Phosphorus retention in riparian buffers: review of their efficiency. , 2009, Journal of environmental quality.

[33]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment , 2010, Land Economics.

[34]  María Molinos-Senante,et al.  Economic Feasibility Study for Phosphorus Recovery Processes , 2011, AMBIO.

[35]  J. Martin-Ortega,et al.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Water-Saving Measures for the Water Framework Directive: the Case of the Guadalquivir River Basin in Southern Spain , 2011 .

[36]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP , 2006 .

[37]  H. Bennion,et al.  Development of a risk based prioritisation protocol for standing waters in Great Britain based on a georeferenced inventory - Phase 2 (P2-260/2/TR1) , 2003 .