Environmental benefits of reclaimed water: An economic assessment in the context of the Water Framework Directive

Water Policy

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 148-159

  Alcon, Francisco ^a   Martin Ortega, J ^b   Berbel, J ^c   De Miguel, M D ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CARTAGENA   (Spain)

^b SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CÓRDOBA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Good ecological status; Reclaimed water; River flow; Segura River Basin; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857571038     PISSN: 13667017     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2166/wp.2011.001     Document Type: Article

References (53)

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. Ecological Economics 66, 359-370. (Pubitemid 351749782)
2. Alcon, F., Pedrero, F., Martin-Ortega, J., Arcas, N., Alarcon, J. J. & de Miguel, M. D. (2010). The non-market value of reclaimed waste water for use in agriculture: a contingent valuation approach. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 8(S2), 187-196.
3. Amemiya, T. (1984). Tobit model - a survey. Journal of Econometrics 24(1-2), 3-61.
4. 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.
5. 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. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
6. Balistreri, E., CcClelland, G., Poe, G. & Schulze, W. (2001). Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environmental & Resource Economics 18, 275-292. (Pubitemid 32368382)
7. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, N., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R. & Swanson, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
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. Ecological Economics 60(2), 450-460. (Pubitemid 44601974)
9. Berbel, J., Martin-Ortega, J. & Mesa, P. (2011). A cost-effectiveness analysis of water-saving measures for the water framework directive: the case of the Guadalquivir River Basin in southern Spain. Water Resources Management 25, 623-640.
10. Birol, E. & Das, S. (2010). Estimating the value of improved wastewater treatment: the case of River Ganga, India. Journal of Environmental Management 91(11), 2163-2171.
11. 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. Science of the Total Environment 365(1-3), 105-122. (Pubitemid 44183824)
12. Birol, E., Koundouri, P. & Kountouris, Y. (2010). Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water-scarce regions: combining economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis and discounting. Ecological Economics 69(4), 839-847.
13. BOE (Boletín Oficial del Estado) (2007). Royal Decree 1620/2007, of 7 December 2007, regulating the legal regime for reuse of purified waste waters. BOE, 294, 8/12/2007.
14. Bouwer, H. (1992). Agricultural and municipal use of waste-water. Water Science and Technology 26(7-8), 1583-1591.
15. Brouwer, R. (2008). The potential role of stated preference methods in the water framework directive to assess disproportionate costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(5), 597-614.
16. Brouwer, R., Martin-Ortega, J. & Berbel, J. (2010). Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Economics 86(3), 552-568.
17. Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E. & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental & Resource Economics 19(2), 173-210. (Pubitemid 32459257)
18. Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C., Hanemann, M., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S. & Ruud, P. (2003). Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental & Resource Economics 25, 257-286. (Pubitemid 36854603)
19. Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) (2009). Available at: http://www.ciwem.org.uk(Accessed November 2010).
20. Del Saz-Salazar, S., Hernandez-Sancho, F. & Sala-Garrido, R. (2009a). 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. Science of the Total Environment 407(16), 4574-4583.
21. Del Saz-Salazar, S., Hernandez-Sancho, F. & Sala-Garrido, R. (2009b). 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(1), 37-63.
22. Diamond, P. A. & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation - is some number better than no number. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 45-64.
23. Dziegielewska, D. A. & Mendelsohn, R. (2007). Does 'no' mean 'no'? A protest methodology. Environmental & Resource Economics 38(1), 71-87.
24. Entidad de Saneamiento y Depuración de Aguas Residuales de la Region de Murcia (ESAMUR) (2008). Implantación de tratamientos terciarios en la Región de Murcia. IV Jornadas Técnicas de Saneamiento y Depuración. Murcia, Spain.
25. Entidad de Saneamiento y Depuración de Aguas Residuales de la Region de Murcia (ESAMUR) (2010). Available at: http://www.esamur.com/. Murcia, Spain (Accessed November 2010).
26. European Commission (2003). Economics and the Environment: The Implementation Challenge of the 21 Water Framework Directive - WATECO: A Guidance Document. EC, Brussels.
27. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2009). Water Resources Across Europe - Confronting Water Scarcity and Drought. EEA Report No 2/2009.
28. Glenk, K., Lago, M. & Moran, D. (2011). Public preferences for water quality improvements: implications for the implementation of the EC water framework directive in Scotland. Water Policy 13(5), 645-666.
29. 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. Journal of Environmental Management 33(1), 79-89.
30. 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)
31. Iglesias, R. & Ortega, E. (2008). Present and future of wastewater reuse in Spain. Desalination 218(1-3), 105-119.
32. Iglesias, R., Ortega, E., Batanero, G. & Quintas, L. (2010). Water reuse in Spain: data overview and costs estimation of suitable treatment trains. Desalination 263, 1-10.
33. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). The physical science basis. IPCC Working Group I fourth assessment report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
34. Interwies, E., Kraemer, A., Kranz, N., Gö rlach, 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.
35. Jorgensen, B. S., Syme, G. J., Bishop, B. J. & Nancarrow, B. E. (1999). Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 14(1), 131-150. (Pubitemid 29363269)
36. Loomis, J. B. (2009). Environmental and resource valuation with revealed preferences: a theoretical guide to empirical models. Environmental & Resource Economics 42(1), 133-135.
37. Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 463 pp.
38. 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. Science of the Total Environment 408(19), 3990-3997.
39. 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.
40. Martin-Ortega, J., Giannoccaro, G. & Berbel, J. (2011). Environmental and resource costs under water scarcity conditions: an estimation in the context of the European water framework directive. Water Resources Management 25, 1615-1633.
41. Messner, F. (2006). Applying participatory multicriteria methods to river basin management: improving the implementation of the water framework directive - introduction. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy 24(2), 159-167.
42. Meyerhoff, J. & Liebe, U. (2006). Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics 57, 583-594. (Pubitemid 44262046)
43. Montesinos, A. (2004). Estudio de la depuración del agua en España y en la Región de Murcia. Proyecto Fin de Carrera. Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Cartagena, Spain.
44. Official Journal of the European Community (OJ). (1991). Directive 91/271/EEC of the Council of May 21. Official Journal of the European Union L 135, 40-52
45. Pearce, D. W. & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment. Pearson Education Limited, Essex.
46. Plan Hidrológico de la Cuenca del Segura (PHCS) (1998). Royal Decree 1664/1998, of 24 July. Confederación Hidrográfica del Segura, Murcia, Spain.
47. Ready, R. C., Navrud, S. & Dubourg, W. R. (2001). How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Land Economics 77(3), 315-326. (Pubitemid 32939838)
48. Schaafsma, M. & Brouwer, R. (2006). Overview of existing guidelines and manuals for the economic valuation of environmental and resource costs and benefits. Report of the EU funded project AquaMoney. Available at: http://www. aquamoney.ecologic-events.de/sites/download/aquamoney-overview-guidelines.pdf (Accessed November 2010)
49. 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. Applied Economics Letters 7(3), 181-184.
50. Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent-variables. Econometrica 26(1), 24-36.
51. Tsagarakis, K. P. (2005). Recycled water valuation as a corollary of the 2000/60/EC water framework directive. Agricultural Water Management 72(1), 1-14. (Pubitemid 40118195)
52. van der Gun, J. & Lipponen, A. (2010). Reconciling groundwater storage depletion due to pumping with sustainability. Sustainability 2, 3418-3435.
53. Whitehead, J. C., 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. Economics Letters 41(2), 215-220.