The non-market value of reclaimed wastewater for use in agriculture: A contingent valuation approach;Valor no de mercado del uso de agua depurada en agricultura: Una aproximación por valoración contingente

Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research

Volumn 8, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2010, Pages

  Alcon, F ^a   Pedrero, F ^b   Martin Ortega, J ^c,d   Arcas, N ^a   Alarcon, J J ^b   de Miguel, M D ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CARTAGENA   (Spain)

^b RESEARCH GROUP ON QUALITY   (Spain)

^c BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BC3   (Spain)

^d SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Environmental benefits; Irrigation; Segura basin; Spain; Water framework directive

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649861260     PISSN: 1695971X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5424/sjar/201008s2-1361     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. ADAMS C., SEROA DA MOTTA R., ORTIZ R., REID J., Ebersbach C., Almeida P.A., 2008. 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. Ecol Econ 66, 359-370.
2. AMEMIYA T., 1984. Tobit models: a survey. J Econometrics 24, 3-61.
3. ARROW K., SOLOW R., PORTNEY P., LEAMER E., RADNER R., SCHUMAN H., 1993. Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58, 4602-4614.
4. BAKER B., METCALFE P., BUTLER S., GUERON I., SHELDON R., EAST J., 2007. Report on the benefits of Water Framework Directive Programs of measure in England and Wales. Dept Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK. 133 pp.
5. BALISTRERI E., McClelland G., Poe G., Schulze W.D., 2001. Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environ Resour Econ 18, 275-292.
6. BATANERO J.G., 2008. Implantación de tratamientos terciarios en España. Tipos y condiciones de funcionamiento. Proc IV Jornadas Técnicas de Saneamiento y Depuración. Murcia, Spain, Nov 12-13. pp. 1-7. [In Spanish].
7. BATEMAN I.J., CARSON B., DAY B.H., HANEMANN N., HANLEY N., HETT T., LEE M., LOOMES G., MOURATO S., OZDEMIROGLU E., PEARCE D.W., SUDGEN R., SAWANSON J., 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: summary guide. Edgar Elgar, Massachussets. 458 pp.
8. BATEMAN I.J., DAY B.H., GEORGIOU S., LAKE I., 2006. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60, 450-460.
9. BERBEL J., MESA P., Martin-Ortega J., 2009. El análisis coste-eficacia en los Programas de Medidas de la DMA. In: La economía del agua de riego en España (Gómez-Limón J.A., Garrido A., Calatrava-Leyva J., Sáez-Fernández F.J., Xabadía A., eds). Fundación Cajamar, Almería, Spain. pp. 55-74. [In Spanish].
10. BIROL E., KAROUSAKIS K., KOUNDOURI P., 2006. Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Sci Total Environ 365, 105-122.
11. BIROL E., KOUNDOURI P., KOUNTOURI Y., 2009. Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water scarce regions: the roles of economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis and discounting. Int Assoc Agric Econ Conf, Beijing, China, Aug 16-22.
12. BOE, 2000. Law 3/2000, of the 12 July, treatment and purification of wastewater and the implementation of the treatment charge. Boletín Oficial del Estado No. 8, 9/01/2001.
13. BOE, 2003. Law 62/2003, of the 30 December, on fiscal, administrative and social order measures. Boletín Oficial del Estado No. 313, 31/12/2010.
14. BOE, 2007. Royal Decree 1620/2007, of the 7 December, where is regulated the legal regime for reuse of purified wastewaters. Boletín Oficial del Estado No. 294, 8/12/2007.
15. BOUWER H., 1992. Agricultural and municipal use of wastewater. Water Sci Technol 26, 1583-1591.
16. BROUWER R., 2004. The value of clean water. Perception and valuation of the benefits associated with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands. RIZA rapport 2004-013, RIZA, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
17. BROUWER R., 2008. The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. J Environ Plan Manage 51, 597-614.
18. CARM, 2007. El agua y la agricultura en la Región de Murcia. Consejería de Economía y Hacienda. Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia, Murcia, Spain. 111 pp. [In Spanish].
19. CARM, 2008. Anuario estadístico de la Región de Murcia. Consejería de Economía y Hacienda, Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia, Murcia, Spain. [In Spanish].
20. CARSON R.T., FLORES N.E., MEADE N.F., 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19, 173-210.
21. CIWEM, 2009. Chartered institution of water and environmental management [on line]. Available in http://www.ciwem.org/resources/water/reuse.asp [10 May, 2008].
22. DEL SAZ-SALAZAR S., Hernández-Sancho F., sala-garrido R., 2009a. Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales 9, 37-63. [In Spanish].
23. DEL SAZ-SALAZAR S., Hernández-Sancho F., Sala-Garrido R., 2009b. 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 407, 4574-4583.
24. DIAMOND P. A., HAUSMAN J. A., 1994. Contingent valuation - Is some number better than no number. J Econ Perspec 8, 45-64.
25. DWORAK T., BERGLUND M., LAASER C., STROSSER P., ROUSSARD J., GRANDMOUGIN B., KOSSIDA M., KYRIAZOPOULOU I., BERBEL J., KOLBERG S., Rodríguez-Díaz J.A., Montesinos P., 2007. EU water saving potential (Part 1 -Report) [on line]. Available in http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/water_saving_1.pdf [10 May, 2008].
26. DZIEGIELEWSKA D.A., MENDELSOHN R., 2007. Does «no» mean «no»? A protest methodology. Environ Resour Econ 38, 71-87.
27. ESAMUR, 2008. Implantación de tratamientos terciarios en la Región de Murcia. IV Jornadas Técnicas de Saneamiento y Depuración, Murcia, Spain, Nov 12-13. [In Spanish].
28. ESAMUR, 2009. Entidad regional de saneamiento y depuración de aguas residuales de la Región de Murcia. Available in http://www.esamur.com [2 June, 2008]. [In Spanish].
29. FREEMAN A.M., 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington DC, USA. 491 pp.
30. GOODSTEIN E.S., 2008. Economics and the environment. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Hoboken, NJ. 528 pp.
31. HALSTEAD J.M., LINDSAY B.E., BROWN C.M., 1991. Use of the Tobit model in contingent valuation: experimental evidence from the Pemigewasset Wilderness Area. J Environ Manage 33, 79-89.
32. HANLEY N., 1996. Ethical beliefs and behaviour in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Plan Manage 39, 255-272.
33. HANLEY N., WRIGHT R.E., Álvarez-Farizo B., 2006. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the Water Framework Directive. J Environ Manage 78, 183-193.
34. Hernández-Sancho F., Molinos-Senante M., Sala-Garrido R., 2009. Environmental benefits of wastewater treatment: an economic valuation. In: Risk management of water supply and sanitation systems. Springer, Netherlands. pp. 251-260.
35. Hernández-Sancho F., Senante M. M., Salagarrido R., 2010. Economic valuation of environmental benefits from wastewater treatment processes: an empirical approach for Spain. Sci Total Environ 408, 953-957.
36. HICKS J.R., 1943. The four consumer surpluses. Rev Econ Stud 8, 108-116.
37. IGLESIAS R., ORTEGA E., 2008. Present and future of wastewater reuse in Spain. Desalination 218, 105-119.
38. INE, 2008. Estadísticas e indicadores del agua. Boletín informativo del Instituto Nacional de Estadística [on line]. Available in http://www.ine.es/revistas/cifraine/0108.pdf [2 June, 2008]. [In Spanish].
39. INTERWIES E., KRAEMER A., KRANZ N., GÖRLACH B., DWORAK I.T., 2004. Basic principles for selecting the most cost-effective combinations of measures for inclusion in the programme of measures as described in article 11 of the Water Framework Directive. Handbook, German Federal Environmental Agency, Berlin.
40. IPCC, 2007. Working group I fourth assessment report «The Physical Science Basis». Geneva, Switzerland.
41. JORGENSEN B.S., SYME G.J., BISHOP B.J., NANCARROW B.E., 1999. Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14, 131-150.
42. LOOMIS J.B., 2000. Environmental valuation techniques in water resources decision making. J Water Resour Plan Manage 126(6), 339-344.
43. Martin-Ortega J., 2008. Beneficios ambientales no de mercado asociados a la implementación de la Directiva Marco del Agua: una aproximación territorial a la Demarcación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir. Doctoral thesis. Univ Córdoba, Córdoba. [In Spanish].
44. Martin-Ortega J., 2010. Beneficios ambientales de las aguas del Guadalquivir: un análisis económico. Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces, Sevilla, Spain. 226 pp. [In Spanish].
45. Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J., 2009. Beneficios y costes ambientales en la Directiva Marco del Agua: conceptos y estimación. Revista de Estudios Geográficos LXIXM, 577-607. [In Spanish].
46. Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J., 2010. Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the Water Framework Directive. Sci Total Environ 408(19), 3990-3997.
47. Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J., Brouwer R., 2009. 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. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales 9, 65-89. [In Spanish].
48. MESSNER F., 2006. Applying participatory multicriteria methods to river basin management: improving the implementation of the Water Framework Directive - Introduction. Environ Plan C-Government Policy 24, 159-167.
49. OJ, 1991. Directive 91/271/EEC of the Council of May 21. Official Journal of the European Union L 135, 30.5.1991, pp. 40-52.
50. OJ, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 23. Official Journal of the European Union L 327, 22.12.2000, pp. 1-73.
51. PEARCE D.W., TURNER R.K., 1990. Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester, Wheatsheaf, UK.
52. READY R.C., NAVRUD S., DUBOURG W.R., 2001. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Land Econ 77, 315-326.
53. SCHAAFSMA M., BROUWER R., 2006. Overview of existing guidelines and manuals for the economic valuation of environmental and resource costs and benefits [on line]. Available in http://www.aquamoney.ecologic-events.de/sites/download/aquamoney-overvie w-guidelines.pdf [20 April, 2008].
54. SCOTT C.A., FARUQUI N.I., Raschid-Sally L., 2004. Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: coordinating the livelihood and environmental realities. CAB Int Publ, Wallingford. 193 pp.
55. Seung-Hoon Y., Seung-Jun K., Tai-Yoo K., 2000. Dealing with zero response data from contingent valuation surveys: application of least absolute deviations estimator. Appl Econ Lett 7, 181-184.
56. TOBIN J., 1958. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent- variables. Econometrica 26, 24-36.
57. WATECO, 2003. Economics and the environment: the implementation challenge of the Water Framework Directive. A guidance document. Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). European Commission, Brussels.
58. WHITEHEAD J., GROOTHUIS P.A., BLOMQUIST G.C., 1993. Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: analysis of a combination phone/ mail survey. Econ Lett 41, 215-220.