Public preferences for water quality improvements: Implications for the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Scotland

Water Policy

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 645-662

  Glenk, Klaus ^a   Lago, Manuel ^b   Moran, Dominic ^a  

^a SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^b ECOLOGIC INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Good status; Non market benefits; Water framework directive; Water quality improvements

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054891002     PISSN: 13667017     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2166/wp.2011.060     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. & Williams, M. (1994). Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271-292. (Pubitemid 2070720)
2. Baker, B., Metcalfe, P., Butler, S., Gueron, Y., Sheldon, R. & East, J. (2007). The Benefits of the Water Framework Directive Programme of Measures in England and Wales. Final Report to DEFRA re CRP Project 4b/c/d.
3. Bateman, I., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R. & Swanson, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
4. Bateman, I. J., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Navrud, S., Poe, G. L., Ready, R. C., Riera, P., Ryan, M. & Vossler, C. A. (2005). Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquatic Sciences, 67 (3), 274-291. (Pubitemid 41367206)
5. Brouwer, R. (2008). The role of stated preference methods in the water framework directive to assess disproportionate costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51 (5), 597-614.
6. Burton, M., Marsh, S. P. & Patterson, J. (2007). Community attitudes towards water management in the Moore Catchment, Western Australia. Agricultural Systems, 92, 157-178. (Pubitemid 44779992)
7. Campbell, D. (2007). Willingness-to-pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random effects models. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58 (3), 467-483. (Pubitemid 47316810)
8. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W. G. & Scarpa, R. (2006). Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-specific Willingness-to-pay Estimates. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper Series 128. Available at: http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL2006/ NDL2006-128.pdf (Accessed March 28 2001).
9. Colombo, S. & Hanley, N. (2008). How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Economics, 84 (1), 128-147. (Pubitemid 351454715)
10. De Nocker, L., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., Görlach, B., Jantzen, J. & Campling, P. (2007). Cost Benefit Analysis on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive including a Specific Focus on Agriculture: Final Report. Study for DG Environment - Final Version. Available at: http://www.vito.be/VITO/OpenWoDocument.aspx?wovitoguid=D1704CC9- 3ADD-4E69-93CF-F87A6D787C62 (Accessed March 28 2011).
11. DWP (2007). UK Family Resources Survey (FRS), 2005/06. UK Department for Work and Pensions. Available at: http:// research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/index/ index.php?page=publications
12. Ecologic (2003). Handbook - Basic Principles for Selecting the Most Cost-efficient Combination of Measures for Inclusion in the Programme of Measures as Described in Article 11 of the Water Framework Directive. Available at: www.ecologic.de/ download/projekte/1950-1999/1970/handbook-measures.pdf (Accessed March 28 2011).
13. ENTEC (2008). Impact Assessment of the River Basin Management Plan for Scotland River Basin District. Technical Report by ENTEC October 2008, relating to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the River Basin Management Planning process in Scotland. Technical report for the Scottish Government. Edinburgh. October 2008. Available at: http://scotland.gov.uk/ Publications/2009/01/08093641/22 (Accessed March 28 2011).
14. European Commission (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal, 22 December 2000, Brussels.
15. European Commission (2002). Economics and the Environment. The Implementation Challenge of the Water Framework Directive. A Guidance Document. Directorate for the Environment, Brussels.
16. Georgiou, S., Bateman, I., Cole, M. & Hadley, D. (2000). Contingent Ranking and Valuation of River Water Quality Improvements: Testing for Scope Sensitivity, Ordering and Distance Decay Effects. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-18. University of East Anglia, UK, CSERGE.
17. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric Analysis, 6th edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
18. GROS (2007) Household Estimates for Scotland. Report published by the General Register Office for Scotland. Available at: http://www.gro-scotland.gov. uk/files1/stats/household-estimates-for-scotland-2006/household-estimates-for- scotland-2006. pdf (Accessed March 29 2007).
19. Hanley, N. & Black, A. R. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the water framework directive in Scotland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2 (2), 156-165.
20. Hanley, N.,Wright, R. E. & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2006). Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the Water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management, 78 (2), 183-193. (Pubitemid 43115582)
21. Heberling, M., Fisher, A. & Shortle, J. (2000). How the Number of Choice Sets Affects Responses in Stated Choice Surveys. USEPA, Cincinnati.
22. Hensher, D. A. & Greene, W. H. (2003). The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation, 30 (2), 133-176. (Pubitemid 36405819)
23. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Hope, R. A. & Garrod, G. D. (2004). Household preferences to water policy interventions in rural South Africa. Water Policy, 6, 487-499. (Pubitemid 40199281)
25. Huber, J., Viscusi, W. K. & Bell, J. (2006). Economics of Environmental Improvement. Report submitted to US EPA under CR823604 and R827423.
26. Johnston, R. J. (2007). Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer. Environmental & Resource Economics, 38, 331-351. (Pubitemid 47546945)
27. Loomis, J. (1992). The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resources Research, 28, 701-705.
28. McFadden, D. & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15, 447-470.
29. McVittie, A. & Moran, D. (2008). Determining Monetary Values for Use and Non-use Goods and Services - Marine Biodiversity - Primary Valuation. Report to Defra, UK.
30. Moran, D. & Dann, S. (2008). The economic value of water use: implications for implementing the water framework directive in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 87 (3), 484-496. (Pubitemid 351391722)
31. Morrison, M. & Bennett, J. (2004). Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer. The Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resources Economics, 48 (4), 591-611. (Pubitemid 40117825)
32. Ouma, E., Awudu, A. & Drucker, A. (2007). Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits among cattle-keeping households in East Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89 (4), 1005-1019. (Pubitemid 47506075)
33. Pearce, D. W. (2004). Does European Union environment policy pass a cost-benefit test? World Economics, 5 (3), 115-137.
34. Phanikumar, C. V. & Maitra, B. (2006). Valuing urban bus attributes: an experience in Kolkata. Journal of Public Transportation, 9 (2), 69-87.
35. Poe, G., Severance-Lossin, E. & Welsh, M. (2005). Simple computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87 (2), 353-365. (Pubitemid 40687066)
36. Scottish Government (2007). Scottish Household Survey 2005/06. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/ 08/01084217/134 (Accessed March 24 2011).
37. SEPA (2005a). An Economic Analysis of Water Use in the Scotland River Basin District. SUMMARY REPORT. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Stirling 2005. Available at: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/water-publications/idoc.ashx? docid=97c30802-4d5e-4eaa-a701-6b6521671b4b&version=-1 (Accessed March 28 2011).
38. SEPA (2005b). An Economic Analysis of Water Use in the Solway-Tweed River Basin District. SUMMARY REPORT. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Stirling 2005. Available at: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/water-publications/ idoc.ashx? docid=d32c83ad-fda4-467a-9272-ce73fce4df79&version=-1 (Accessed March 28 2011).
39. Swait, J. & Louviere, J. (1993). The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 305-314.
40. UK Cabinet Office (2003). Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment. Regulatory Impact Unit, London.
41. Viscusi, W. K., Huber, J. & Bell, J. (2008). The economic value of water quality. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41 (2), 169-187.
42. Willis, K. G., Scarpa, R. & Acutt, M. (2005). Assessing water company customer preferences and willingness-to-pay for service improvements: a stated choice analysis. Water Resources Research, 41, 1-11. (Pubitemid 40393938)