The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs

This paper examines the issue of disproportionate costs of Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation using public surveys as a means to inform policy and decision making. Public taxpayers are asked their opinion regarding the implementation of the WFD and its costs. Taxpayers are expected to bear a large share of the cost of WFD implementation, be it through national taxation, local water pollution charges or higher market prices for water related goods and services. The paper's main objective is to illustrate the role of stated preference research to elicit public opinions and perceptions towards socially acceptable levels of water quality and public willingness to pay (WTP) for the expected environmental benefits of the WFD. Stated preference research can be used as a way to assess the concept of disproportionate costs to those who are expected to bear a large share of the costs of WFD implementation, and at the same time address the issue of public participation in the WFD. The survey results are used as a public consultation tool to inform policy and decision makers about public willingness and ability to pay for the implementation of the WFD. This measure can be used as one of the benchmarks to define disproportionate costs in a cost-benefit context.

[1]  Pamela Campanelli,et al.  Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires , 2005 .

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

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

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

[5]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[6]  J. Burgess,et al.  "I struggled with this money business”: Respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation , 2000 .

[7]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences , 2001 .

[8]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[9]  Elizabeth Martin,et al.  METHODS FOR TESTING AND EVALUATING SURVEY QUESTIONS , 2004 .

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

[11]  Carlo Giupponi,et al.  Towards the development of a decision support system for water resource management , 2005, Environ. Model. Softw..

[12]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and developing Countries , 2001 .

[13]  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.

[14]  Charles D. Barrett.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[15]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[16]  N. Denzin,et al.  The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research , 2007 .

[17]  D. Moran.  Benefits transfer and low-flow alleviation: what lessons for environmental valuation in the UK? , 1999 .

[18]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: List of tables , 2005 .

[19]  K. McConnell,et al.  The Citizen Versus Consumer Hypothesis: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey , 2002 .

[20]  K. Weick.  Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. , 1978 .

[21]  Shawn A. Ross,et al.  Survey Methodology , 2005, The SAGE Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Religion.

[22]  P. Campling.  Costs and Benefits associated with the implementati on of the Water Framework Directive, with a special focus on agriculture: Final Report , 2007 .

[23]  Sergio Rajsbaum,et al.  Introduction , 2007, SIGA.

[24]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Public Attitudes to Contingent Valuation and Public Consultation1 , 1999, Environmental Values.

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

[26]  N. Hanley,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment , 1998 .

[27]  J. Rao,et al.  Wiley Series in Survey Methodology , 2005 .

[28]  R. Brouwer.  Valuing Water Quality Changes in the Netherlands Using Stated Preference Techniques , 2006 .

[29]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[30]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[31]  J. Foster,et al.  Valuing nature? : ethics, economics and the environment. , 1997 .

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

[33]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DISCRETE-RESPONSE CV DATA , 1996 .

[34]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Economic Valuation With Stated Preference Techniques , 2002 .

[35]  J. Quiggin,et al.  Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens? - Reply , 1995 .

[36]  Michael Jacobs,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION, DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING INSTITUTIONS , 1997 .

[37]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Integrated modelling of risk and uncertainty underlying the cost and effectiveness of water quality measures , 2008, Environ. Model. Softw..

[38]  J. O’Neill,et al.  Managing Without Prices: On the Monetary Valuation of Biodiversity , 1997 .

[39]  I. Bateman,et al.  The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data , 2000 .

[40]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions , 1997 .