Using a new incentive mechanism to improve wastewater sector performance: the case study of Italy.

The system of "Service Objectives", introduced by the Italian National Strategic Framework 2007-2013, is an innovative results-oriented programme concerning 4 thematic areas (education, care for the elderly and children, management of municipal solid wastes and integrated water service) in which the Ministry of Economic Development and eight Southern Italy districts are involved. The system was initially associated to an incentive mechanism which provided subsidies for a total amount of EUR 3 billion from the national Underdeveloped Areas Fund, according to the achievement of specific targets set for 11 service indicators in 2013. The indicators used for the integrated water service refer to the efficiency in water supply service as well as the coverage of wastewater treatment service. The aim of the study is to describe the activities carried out in Italy by the ENEA Agency in order to define a new performance indicator for wastewater treatment service taking into account the appropriateness and efficiency of existing plants equipment and, consequently, evaluating economic incentives. The proposed procedure takes into account both wastewater treatment demand and quality of wastewater treatment service offered to citizens. Input data, provided by the National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), were elaborated in order to define appropriate parameters, with a multi-criteria analysis being used to define the new performance indicator. The applicability of the proposed procedure was verified considering all the 8 Southern Italy and Island districts (Abruzzo, Molise, Campania, Apulia, Basilicata, Calabria, Sicily and Sardinia) involved in the programme. The obtained results show that the quality of municipal wastewater may influence the calculation of the incentive amount. The performance indicators defined in this work might be conveniently extended to other contexts similar to the assessed geographical area (Southern Italy and Islands).

[1]  K. Ingold,et al.  Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[2]  David S. Saal,et al.  Is a little sunshine all we need? On the impact of sunshine regulation on profits, productivity and prices in the Dutch drinking water sector , 2008 .

[3]  Carlo Cambini,et al.  Incentive regulation and investment: evidence from European energy utilities , 2010 .

[4]  Linda Steg,et al.  Why are Energy Policies Acceptable and Effective? , 2006 .

[5]  S. D. Gisi,et al.  Using an innovative criteria weighting tool for stakeholders involvement to rank MSW facility sites with the AHP. , 2010 .

[6]  E. Hutchinson,et al.  Subsidies for the Production of Cleaner Energy: When Do They Cause Emissions to Rise? , 2010 .

[7]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications - A State-of-the-Art Survey , 1981, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.

[8]  Ekaterina Domorenok,et al.  Water Management and Protection in Italy , 2012 .

[9]  C. Jasch.  Environmental performance evaluation and indicators , 2000 .

[10]  Riccardo Lucchetti,et al.  Aspetti economici della depurazione delle acque reflue , 2000 .

[11]  Steffen Kallbekken.  Public Acceptability of Incentive-Based Mechanisms , 2013 .

[12]  G De Feo,et al.  A comparison of the efficacy of organic and mixed-organic polymers with polyaluminium chloride in chemically assisted primary sedimentation (CAPS) , 2013, Environmental technology.

[13]  Pedro Simões,et al.  Influence of regulation on the productivity of waste utilities. What can we learn with the Portuguese experience? , 2012, Waste management.

[14]  N. Hanley,et al.  The Effects of Rent Seeking over Tradable Pollution Permits , 2009 .

[15]  Saurabh Gupta,et al.  An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies , 2009 .

[16]  P. Butelli,et al.  Environmental performance, indicators and measurement uncertainty in EMS context: a case study , 2008 .

[17]  Marta Herva,et al.  Review of combined approaches and multi-criteria analysis for corporate environmental evaluation , 2013 .

[18]  Steffen Kallbekken,et al.  The demand for earmarking: Results from a focus group study , 2010 .

[19]  Giovanni Libralato,et al.  To centralise or to decentralise: an overview of the most recent trends in wastewater treatment management. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.