Valuing users’ willingness to pay for improved water quality in the context of the water framework directive

References

• Alberini A, Rosato P, Longo A, Zanatta V. 2005. Information and willingness to pay in a contingent valuation study: the value of S.Erasmo in the Lagoon of Venice. J Environ Plann Manage. 48:155–175.
   Google Scholar
• Alexakis D, Kagalou I, Tsakiris G. 2013. Assessment of pressures and impacts on surface water bodies of the Mediterranean. Case study: pamvotis lake Greece. Environ Earth Sci. 70(2):687–698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An Y, Ayala A. 1996. A mixture model of willingness to pay distributions. Ecuador: Duke University and Central Bank. https://ssrn.com/abstract=15524
   Google Scholar
• Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Washington DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce.
   Google Scholar
• Atkins JP, Burdon D. 2006. An initial economic evaluation of water quality improvements in the Randers Fjord, Denmark. Mar Pollut Bull. 53:195–204. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.09.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Liekens I, Navrud S, et al. 2011. Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ Resour Econ. 50(3):365–387. doi:10.1007/s10640-011-9476-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berbel J, Expósito A. 2018. Economic challenges for the EU water framework directive reform and implementation. Eur Plann Stud. 26:20–34. doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1364353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berta ML, Carlos M, Javier B. 2007. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. 139:67–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(1–3):105–122. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.02.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouleau G. 2008. The WFD Dreams: between ecology and economics. Water Environ J. 22(4):235–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer R. 2008. The role of stated preference methods in the water framework directive to assess disproportionate costs. J Environ Plann Manage. 51(5):597–614. doi:10.1080/09640560802207860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer R, Martín-Ortega J. 2012. Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability. Resour and Energy Econ. 34:151–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley C, Howley P, O’Donoghu C, Kilgarriff P. 2016. Willingness to pay for achieving good status across rivers in the Republic of Ireland. Econ Soc Rev (Irel). 47:425–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson RT. 1991. Constructed markets. In: Braden JB, Kolstad CD, editors. Measuring the demand for environmental quality (pp. 121–162). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ. 19(2):173–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cazabon-Mannette M, Schuhmann P, Hailey A, Horrocks J. 2017. Estimates of the non-market value of sea turtles in Tobago using stated preference techniques. J Environ Manage. 192:281–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen B, Qi X. 2018. Protest response and contingent valuation of an urban forest park in Fuzhou city. Urban For Urban Greening. 29:68–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen WY, Jim CY. 2012. Contingent valuation of ecotourism development in country parks in the urban shadow. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 19:44–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Saz-Salazar S, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R. 2009. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doherty E, Murphy G, Hynes S, Buckley C. 2014. Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: results from a discrete choice experiment. Ecosyst Serv. 7:89–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. Vol. L 327/1. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Communities. 12–13.
   Google Scholar
• Flávio HM, Ferreira P, Formigo N, Svendsen JC. 2017. Reconciling agriculture and stream restoration in Europe: a review relating to the EU water framework directive. Sci Total Environ. 596:378–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster V, Bateman IJ, Harley D. 1997. Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for an environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison. J Agric Econ. 48(1–3):123–138.
   Google Scholar
• Garrote L, Iglesias A, Granados A, Mediero L, Martin-Carrasco F. 2015. Quantitative assessment of climate change vulnerability of irrigation demands in Mediterranean Europe. Water Resour Manag. 29:325–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giannakis E, Bruggeman A, Djuma H, Kozyra J, Hammer J. 2016. Water pricing and irrigation across Europe: opportunities and constraints for adopting irrigation scheduling decision support systems. Water Sci Technol: Water Supply. 16(1):245–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gkiougkis I, Kallioras A, Pliakas F, Pechtelidis A, Diamantis V, Diamantis I, Ziogas A, Dafnis I. 2015. Assessment of soil salinization at the eastern Nestos River Delta,N.E. Greece . Catena. 128:238–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glenk K, Lago M, Morand D. 2011. Public preferences for water quality improvements: implications for the implementation of the EC water framework directive in Scotland. Water Policy. 13:645–662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halkos GE, Matsiori S. 2017. Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection. J Behav Exp Econ. 69:61–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halstead JM, Luloff AE, Stevens TH. 1992. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern J Agric Resour Econ. 21:160–169.
   Google Scholar
• Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ. 73(4):1255–1263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanemann W. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ. 66:332–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley N, Colombo S, Kriström B, Watson F. 2009. Accounting for negative, zero and positive willingness to pay for landscape change in a national park. J Agric Econ. 60:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley N, Schläpfer F, Spurgeon J. 2003. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distancedecay functions for use and non-use values. J Environ Manage. 68:297–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley N, Wright R, Alvarez-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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellenic Statistical Authority. 2011. Labour force survey. Pireaus:Greek Statistical Service [in Greek].
   Google Scholar
• Horton B, Colarullo G, Bateman I, Peres C. 2003. Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation programme in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation study. Environ Conserv. 30(2):139–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. 2000. Applied logistic regression.second edition. New York (USA): Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter PD, Hanley N, Czajkowski M, Mearns K, Tyler AN, Carvalho L, Codd GA. 2012. The effect of risk perception on public preferences and willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by toxic cyanobacterial blooms. Sci Total Environ. 426:32–44. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jianjun J, Chong J, Lun L. 2013. The economic valuation of cultivated land protection: a contingent valuation study in Wenling city, China. Landsc Urban Plan. 119:158–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin J, Wang Z, Liu X. 2008. Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: a policy and contingent valuation study. Ecol Econ. 68:328–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson P, Kriström B, Maler KG. 1989. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: comment. Amer J Agr Econom. 71:2054–2056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones B, Ripberger J, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C. 2017. Estimating willingness to pay for greenhouse gas emission reductions provided by hydropower using the contingent valuation method. Energy Policy. 111:362–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones N, Iosifides T, Evangelinos KI, Florokapi I, Dimitrakopoulos PG. 2012. Investigating knowledge and perceptions of citizens of the national park of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Greece. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 19:25–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones N, Sophoulis CM, Malesios C. 2008. Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. J Socio Econ. 37(6):2478–2491.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen SL, Olsen SB, Ladenburg J, Martinsen L, Svenningsen SR, Hasler B. 2013. Spatially induced disparities in users’ and non-users’ WTP for water quality improvements: testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecol Econ. 92:58–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosenius AK. 2010. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecol Econ. 69:528–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriström B. 1997. Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ. 79(3):1013–1023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lake IR, Bateman IJ, Parfitt JP. 1996. Assessing a kerbside recycling scheme: a quantitative and willingness to pay case study. J Environ Manage. 46:239–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langford IH, Kontogianni A, Skourtos MS, Georgiou S, Bateman I. 1998. Multivariate mixed models for open-ended contingent valuation data. Environ Resour Econ. 12:443–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latinopoulos D, Malios Z, Latinopoulus P. 2016. Valuing the benefits of an urban park project: a contingent valuation study in Thessaloniki, Greece. Land Use Policy. 55:130–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laughland AS, Musser WN, Musser LM. 1994. An experiment in contingent valuation and social desirability. Agric Resour Econ Rev. 23(1):29–36.
   Google Scholar
• Lazaridou D, Michailidis A, Trigkas M. 2018. Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ willingness to undertake environmental responsibility. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 26(15):14732–14741. doi:10.1007/s11356-018-2463-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazaridou D, Michailidis A, Trigkas M, Stefanidis P. 2019. Exploring irrigation water issue through quantitative SWOT analysis: the case of Nestos river basin. In economic and financial challenges for eastern Europe. In: Sykianakis N, Polychronidou P, Karasavvoglou A, editors. Springer proceedings in business and economics. Cham: Springer; p. 445–460.
   Google Scholar
• Lee MK, Yoo SH. 2016. Public’s willingness to pay for a marina port in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Ocean Coastal Manage. 119:119–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer D, Becker N, Kutiel PB. 2013. The value of coastal sand dunes as a measure to plan an optimal policy for invasive plant species: the case of the Acacia saligna at the Nizzanim LTER coastal sand dune nature reserve, Israel. In: Martínez ML, Gallego-Fernández JB, Hesp PA, editors. Restoration of coastal Dunes. Germany: Springer Verlag; 273–288.
   Google Scholar
• Martin-Lopez B, Montes C, Benayas J. 2007. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. 139:67–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menegaki AN, Hanley N, Tsagarakis KP. 2007. The social acceptability and valuation of recycled water in Crete: a study of consumers’ and farmers’ attitudes. Ecol Econ. 62:7–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meunier S, Manning DT, Quéval L, Cherni JA, Dessante P, Zimmerle D. 2019. Determinants of the marginal willingness to pay for improved domestic water and irrigation in partially electrified Rwandan villages. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 26(6):1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Mylopoulos Y, Kolokytha E, Kampragou E, Vagiona D. 2008. A combined methodology for transboundary river basin management in Europe.Application in the Nestos–Mesta catchment area. Water Resour Manage. 22:1101–1112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papastergios G, Fernandez-Turiel JL, Georgakopoulos A, Gimeno D. 2009. Natural and anthropogenic effects on the sediment geochemistry of Nestos river, northern Greece. Environ Geol. 58:1361–1370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park S-Y, Yoo S-H, Kwak S-J. 2012. The conservation value of the Shinan tidal flat in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 20:54–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedreira R, Kallioras A, Pliakas F, Gkiougkis I, Schuth C. 2015. Groundwater vulnerability assessment of a coastal aquifer system at river Nestos eastern Delta, Greece. Environ Earth Sci. 73(10):6387–6415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedrero F, Kalavrouziotis I, Alarcón JJ, Koukoulakis P, Asano T. 2010. Use of treated municipal wastewater in irrigated agriculture—review of some practices in Spain and Greece. Agric Water Manage. 97:1233–1241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto R, Brouwer R, Patrcio J, Abreu P, Marta-Pedroso C, Baeta A, Franco J, Domingos T, Marques J. 2016. Valuing the non-market benefits of estuarine ecosystem services in a river basin context: testing sensitivity to scope and scale. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 169:95–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polyzou E, Jones N, Evangelinos IK, Halvadakis CP. 2011. Willingness to pay for drinking water quality improvement and the influence of social capital. J Socio Econ. 40:74–80.
   Google Scholar
• Rakotonarivo OS, Schaafsma M, Hockley N. 2016. A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods. J Environ Manage. 183:98–109. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramajo-Hernández J, Del Saz-Salazar S. 2012. Estimating the non-market benefits of water quality improvement for a case study in Spain: A contingent valuation approach. Environ Sci Policy. 22:47–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiser B, Shechter M. 1999. Incorporating zero values in the economic valuation of environmental program profits. Environmetrics. 10:87–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarpa R, Willis KG, Garrod GD. 2001. Estimating WTP for speed reduction from dichotomous-choice cv responses with follow-up: the case of rural trunk roads. Environ Resour Econ. 20(4):281–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skoulikidis N. 2009. The environmental state of rivers in the Balkans—a review within the DPSIR framework. Sci Total Environ. 407(8):2501–2516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spash CL, Urama K, Burton R, Kenyon W, Shannon P, Hill G. 2009. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol Econ. 68:955–964.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Special Secretariat for Water. 2012. A note on water cost –analysis, ministry of environment, energy and climate change. Athens:Greece (only available in Greek).
   Google Scholar
• Stithou M, Scarpa R. 2012. Collective versus voluntary payment in contingent valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity: an exploratory study from Zakynthos, Greece. Ocean Coastal Manage. 56:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran YL, Siry JP, Bowker JM, Poudyal NC. 2017. Atlanta households’ willingness to increase urban forests to mitigate climate change. Urban For Urban Greening. 22:84–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsakiris G, Spiliotis M, Paritsis S, Alexakis D. 2009. Assessing the water potential of karstic saline springs by applying a fuzzy approach: the case of Almyros (Heraklion, Crete). Desalination. 237:54–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villanueva AJ, Glenk K, Rodríguez-Entrena M. 2017. Protest responses and willingness to accept: ecosystem services providers’ preferences towards incentive-based schemes. J Agric Econ. 68:801–821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Shi Y, Kim Y, Kamata T. 2013. Valuing water quality improvement in China: a case study of lake Puzhehei in Yunnan province. Ecol Econ. 94:56–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werner M. 1999. Allowing for zeros in dichotomous-choice contingent-valuation models. J Bus Econ Stat. 17(4):479–486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wossink GAA, Van Wenum JH. 2003. Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 30:461–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright SAL, Jacobsen BH. 2011. Participation in the implementation of the water framework directive in Denmark: the prospects for active involvement. Water Policy. 13(2):232–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo SH, Kwak SJ. 2002. Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Appl Econ Lett. 9:929–932.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo SH, Kwak SJ, Kim TY. 2001. Assessing benefits from greenhouse gas emission reduction policy: a pilot case study of Korea. Int J Environ Pollut. 15:553–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo SH, Kwak SY. 2009. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Energy Policy. 37:5408–5416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar