Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the Water Framework Directive

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 408, Issue 19, 2010, Pages 3990-3997

  Martin Ortega, Julia ^a   Berbel, Julio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CÓRDOBA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Analytical hierarchy process; Choice experiment; Multi criteria analysis; Water Framework Directive; Water quality changes

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS; WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE; WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES;

COMMERCE; DECISION MAKING; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; WATER CONSERVATION; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER POLLUTION; WATER QUALITY;

EXPERIMENTS;

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; EUROPEAN UNION; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; VALUATION; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY; WATER RESOURCE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; RIVER BASIN; WATER ANALYSIS; WATER QUALITY; WATER SUPPLY;

ADULT; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENT; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; WATER POLLUTION; WATER SUPPLY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77954623317     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.048     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Addelman S. Symmetrical and asymmetrical fractional factorial design plans. Technometrics 1962, 4(1):47-58.
2. Altuzarra A., Moreno-Jimenez J.M., Salvador M. A Bayesian priorization procedure for AHP-group decision making. Eur J Oper Res 2007, 182(1):367-382.
3. Aczel J., Saaty T.L. Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J Math Psychol 1983, 27:93-102.
4. Aull-Hyde R., Erdogan S., Duke J.M. An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 2006, 171:290-295.
5. Baker B., Metcalfe P., Butler S., Gueron Y., Sheldon R., East J. Report on the Benefits of Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measure in England and Wales 2007, DEFRA, United Kingdom.
6. Barreiro-Hurlé J., Gómez-Limón J. Reconsidering heterogeneity and aggregation issues in environmental valuation: a multi-attribute approach. Environ Resour Econ 2008, 40(4):551-570.
7. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R., Davies H., Day B.H., Deflandre A., Falco S.D., et al. Analyzing the agricultural costs and non-market benefits of implementing the Water Framework Directive. J Agr Econ 2006, 57(2):221-237.
8. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R., Ferrini S., Schaafsma M., Barton D.N., Dubgaard A., et al. Making Benefit Transfers Work: Transferring theoretically derived, spatially explicit, value functions for the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe 2009 CSERGE Working Papers, EDM-2009-10 2009, http://www uea ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/edm_2009_10 htm.
9. Bederli Tümay A. and Brouwer R. Non-market valuation of water quality in a rural transition economy in Turkey applying an a-posteriori bid design. Water Resources Res Tümay A. and Brouwer R. Non-market valuation of water quality in a rural transition economy in Turkey applying an a-posteriori bid design. Water Resources Res 2007; 43 W05436.
10. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Sci Total Environ 2006, 365(1-3):105-122.
11. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida Wetland in Greece. Ecol Econ 2006, 60(1):145-156.
12. Bockstael N. Modelling economics and ecology: the importance of a spatial perspective. Am J Agric Econ 1996, 78:1168-1180.
13. Brody S.D., Highfield L.A. Does location matter? Measuring environmental perceptions of creeks in Two San Antonio watersheds. Environ Behav 2004, 36(3):229-250.
14. Brouwer R. The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. J Environ Planning Manage 2008, 51:597-614.
15. Brouwer R., Bliem M., Flachner Z., Getzner M., Kerekes S., Milton S., et al. Ecosystem Service Valuation from Floodplain Restoration in the Danube River Basin: An International Choice Experiment Application. 17th Annual Conference of the European Association of Enviornmental and Resource Economist, 24-27 June 2009, Amsterdam 2009.
16. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Eco August 2010 N, 86:552-568.
17. Bryson N. A goal programming method for generating priority vectors. J Oper Res Soc 1995, 4:7.
18. Carson R.T., Mitchell R. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resour Res 1993, 29(7):2445-2454.
19. Carson R.T. Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. Determining the Value of Non-marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods 1997, 127-163. Kluwer, Boston. R.J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene, N. Schwartz (Eds.).
20. Chou M.T., Lee H.S., Chu C.W., Cheng C.Y. Synthesizing comparison matrices of AHP under group decision. Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems 2007, 1323-1330. Springer, Berlin.
21. Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir. 2009. http://www.chguadalquivir.es.
22. Del Saz-Salazar S., Hernández-Sancho Fand Sala-Garrido R. 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. Sci Total Environ 2009, 407(16):4574-4583.
23. Dziegielewska D.A., Mendelsohn R. Does "No" mean "No"? A protest methodology. Environ Resou Econ 2007, 38:71-87.
24. Duke J.M., Aull-Hyde R. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecol Econ 2002, 42(1-2):131-145.
25. Duke J.M., Ilvento T.W., Aull-Hyde R. Public Support for Land Preservation. Measuring relative preferences in Delaware. Food and Resource Economics 2002, University of Delaware, FREC RR02-01. Newark.
26. Eade J.D.O., Moran D. Spatial economic valuation: benefits transfer using geographical information systems. J Environ Manage 1996, 48(2):97-110.
27. Forman E., Peniwati K. Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur J Oper Res 1998, 108(1):165-169.
28. Gomez-Limon J., Berbel J. Multicriteria analysis of derived water demand functions: a Spanish case study. Agric Syst 2000, 63:49-72.
29. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 2003, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
30. Gutiérrez C., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Situación y tendencias del uso agrícola del agua en la cuenca del Guadalquivir. Rev Esp Estud Agrosociales Pesqueros 2009, 220(4):163-178.
31. Hall C., McVittie A., Moran D. What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidenc and methods. J Ru Stud 2004, 20(2):211-225.
32. Hanley N., Wright R., Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J Environ Manage 2006, 78:183-193.
33. Hanley N., Colombo S., Tinch D., Black A., Aftab A. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the water framework directive: are benefits transferable?. Eur Rev Agric Econ 2006, 33(3):391-413.
34. Hausman J., McFadden D. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 1984, 52(5):1219-1240.
35. Hein L., van Koppen K., De Groot R.S., van Ierland E.C. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 2006, 57:209-228.
36. Hensher D., Johnson L. Applied Discrete Choice Modelling 1981, Wiley, New York.
37. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied choice analysis. A primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambrige.
38. Jacobs M. Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision making institutions. Valuing Nature? Economics Ethics and Environment 1997, Routledge, London. J. Foster (Ed.).
39. Johnston R.J., Swallow S.K., Bauer D.M. Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land use. Land Ecol 2002, 78:481-500.
40. Johnston R.J., Besedin E.Y., Wardwell R.F. Modeling relationships between use and non-use values for surface water quality: a meta-analysis. Water Resour Res 2003, 39(12):1-9.
41. Jorgensen B.S., Syme G.J., Bishop B.J., Nancarrow B.E. Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 1999, 14(1):131-150.
42. Kallas Z., Gomez-Limon J.A., Barreriro J. Decomposing the value of agricultural multi-functionality: combining contingent valuation and the analytical hierarchy process. J Agric Econ 2007, 58(2):218-241.
43. Laininen P., Hämäläinen R. Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression. Eur J Oper Res 2003, 148(3):514-524.
44. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 1966, 74(2):132-157.
45. Lee C.S., Wen C.G. Application of multiobjective programming to water quality management in a river basin. J Environ Manage 1996, 47(1):11-26.
46. Louviere J., Hensher D., Swait J.D., Adamowicz V. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Cambrigde.
47. Martin-Ortega J., Gutiérrez C., Berbel J. Caracterización de los usos del agua en la demarcación del Guadalquivir en aplicación de la Directiva Marco de Aguas. Rev Estud Regionales 2008, 81:45-76.
48. Martín-Ortega J., Berbel J., Brouwer R. Valoración económica de los beneficios ambientales sin mercado derivados de la mejorad e la calidad del agua: una estimación en aplicación de la Directiva Marco del Agua al Guadalquivir. Economia Agraria y de los Recursos Naturales 2002, 9:65-89.
49. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econ 2000, 15(5):447-470.
50. Mitchell R., Carson N. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation methods 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
51. Moran D., McVittie A., Allcroft D.J., Elston D.A. Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: a comparison of methods. Ecol Econ 2007, 63(1):42-53.
52. Munda G. Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: some methodological issues. Ecol Econ 1996, 19(2):127-168.
53. Peterson D., Silsbee D., Schmoldt D. A case study of resources management planning with multiple objectives and projects. J Environ Manage 1994, 18(5):729-742.
54. Ramanathan R., Ganesh L.S. Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: an evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members weightages. Eur J Oper Res 1994, 79:249-265.
55. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R. Overview of Existing Guidelines and Manuals for the Economic Valuation of Environmental Costs and Benefits. EU 6th FP AquaMoney Project: Development and Testing of Practical Guidelines for the Assessment of Environmental and Resource Costs and Benefits in the WFD 2006, www.aquamoney.org.
56. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process 1980, McGraw-Hill, New York.
57. Saaty T.L., Kearns K.P. Analytical planning. The organization of systems 1985, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
58. Schmoldt D., Peterson D., Silsbee D. Developing inventory and monitoring programs based on multiple objectives. J Environ Manage 1994, 18(5):707-727.
59. Thurstone L.L. Theory of attitude measurement. Psychol Rev 1929, 36:222-241.
60. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
61. Van Den Honert R.C., Lootsma F.A. Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative AHP. The model of the group decision process and Pareto optimality. Eur J Oper Res 1997, 96(2):363-370.
62. Whitehead J., Groothuis P.A., Blomquist G.C. Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: analysis of a combination phone/mail survey. Econ Lett 1993, 41(2):215-220.
63. Zahedi F. A utility approach to the analytic hierarchy process. Math Mod 1987, 9:387395.