Environmental benefits of reclaimed water: an economic assessment in the context of the Water Framework Directive

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) prescribes that all water bodies in Europe should achieve ‘good ecological status’ (GES). Maintaining a certain water flow is a pre-condition for the achievement of GES in areas of water scarcity. In such areas, reclaimed waste water is seen as a promising measure to keep river flow at a sufficient level. The contingent valuation method is applied here to estimate the non-market environmental benefits of using reclaimed water to maintain river flow levels in the Segura River Basin in south-eastern Spain. The assessment of the economic benefits of specific measures gives policy makers more information than a cost-effectiveness analysis alone, which is currently the most commonly used tool to assess potential measures under the WFD. The results show that the implementation of this measure produces significant non-market benefits that are larger than the investment and operational costs of reclaimed water treatment plants.

[1]  J. Tobin.  Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables , 1958 .

[2]  T. Amemiya.  Tobit models: A survey , 1984 .

[3]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[4]  R. S. D. Motta.  Economics of natural resources and the environment , 1990 .

[5]  Bruce E. Lindsay,et al.  Use of the tobit model in contingent valuation : experimental evidence from the pemigewasset wilderness area , 1991 .

[6]  H. Bouwer.  Agricultural and Municipal Use of Wastewater , 1992 .

[7]  Peter A. Groothuis,et al.  Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Analysis of a combination phone/mail survey , 1993 .

[8]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[9]  Brian Bishop,et al.  Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation , 1999 .

[10]  S. Yoo,et al.  Dealing with zero response data from contingent valuation surveys: application of least absolute deviations estimator , 2000 .

[11]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .

[12]  Edward J. Balistreri,et al.  Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values , 2001 .

[13]  R. Ready,et al.  How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions? , 2001, Land Economics.

[14]  I. Bateman.  Economic valuation with stated preference techniques : a manual : department for transport , 2002 .

[15]  R. Kopp,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill , 2003 .

[16]  Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis,et al.  Recycled water valuation as a corollary of the 2000/60/EC water framework directive , 2005 .

[17]  Kenneth E. McConnell,et al.  Environmental and Resource Valuation with Revealed Preferences: A Theoretical Guide to Empirical Models , 2006 .

[18]  F. Messner,et al.  Applying Participatory Multicriteria Methods to River Basin Management: Improving the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive , 2006 .

[19]  Phoebe Koundouri,et al.  Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. , 2006, The Science of the total environment.

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

[21]  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.

[22]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation , 2006 .

[23]  Overview of existing guidelines and manuals for the economic valuation of environmental and resource costs and benefits , 2006 .

[24]  R. Mendelsohn,et al.  Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology , 2007 .

[25]  S. Solomon.  The Physical Science Basis : Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[26]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs , 2008 .

[27]  R. S. D. Motta,et al.  The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil) , 2008 .

[28]  Raquel Iglesias Esteban,et al.  Present and future of wastewater reuse in Spain , 2008 .

[29]  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.

[30]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Valoración económica de los beneficios ambientales de no mercado derivados de la mejora de la calidad del agua: una estimación en aplicación de la Directiva Marco del Agua al Guadalquivir , 2011 .

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

[32]  Enrique Ortega,et al.  Water reuse in Spain: Data overview and costs estimation of suitable treatment trains , 2010 .

[33]  F. Pedrero,et al.  The non-market value of reclaimed wastewater for use in agriculture: a contingent valuation approach , 2010 .

[34]  J. Gun,et al.  Reconciling Groundwater Storage Depletion Due to Pumping with Sustainability , 2010 .

[35]  E. Birol,et al.  Estimating the value of improved wastewater treatment: the case of River Ganga, India. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[36]  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.

[37]  E. Birol,et al.  Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water-scarce regions: Combining economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis and discounting , 2010 .

[38]  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 .

[39]  F. H. Sancho,et al.  Estimating the economic value of a river water quality with a double approach: an application to the principles of the Water Frame Directive. , 2011 .

[40]  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 .

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