491
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

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

&
Pages 424-434 | Received 01 Dec 2019, Accepted 18 Jan 2020, Published online: 27 Jan 2020

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.
  • 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.
  • An Y, Ayala A. 1996. A mixture model of willingness to pay distributions. Ecuador: Duke University and Central Bank. https://ssrn.com/abstract=15524
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Berta ML, Carlos M, Javier B. 2007. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. 139:67–82.
  • 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.
  • Bouleau G. 2008. The WFD Dreams: between ecology and economics. Water Environ J. 22(4):235–240.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Carson RT. 1991. Constructed markets. In: Braden JB, Kolstad CD, editors. Measuring the demand for environmental quality (pp. 121–162). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.
  • Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ. 19(2):173–210.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Halkos GE, Matsiori S. 2017. Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection. J Behav Exp Econ. 69:61–70.
  • Halstead JM, Luloff AE, Stevens TH. 1992. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern J Agric Resour Econ. 21:160–169.
  • Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ. 73(4):1255–1263.
  • Hanemann W. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ. 66:332–341.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hellenic Statistical Authority. 2011. Labour force survey. Pireaus:Greek Statistical Service [in Greek].
  • 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.
  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. 2000. Applied logistic regression.second edition. New York (USA): Wiley.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Kriström B. 1997. Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ. 79(3):1013–1023.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Laughland AS, Musser WN, Musser LM. 1994. An experiment in contingent valuation and social desirability. Agric Resour Econ Rev. 23(1):29–36.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Reiser B, Shechter M. 1999. Incorporating zero values in the economic valuation of environmental program profits. Environmetrics. 10:87–101.
  • 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.
  • Skoulikidis N. 2009. The environmental state of rivers in the Balkans—a review within the DPSIR framework. Sci Total Environ. 407(8):2501–2516.
  • 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.
  • Special Secretariat for Water. 2012. A note on water cost –analysis, ministry of environment, energy and climate change. Athens:Greece (only available in Greek).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Werner M. 1999. Allowing for zeros in dichotomous-choice contingent-valuation models. J Bus Econ Stat. 17(4):479–486.
  • Wossink GAA, Van Wenum JH. 2003. Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 30:461–485.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Yoo SH, Kwak SY. 2009. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Energy Policy. 37:5408–5416.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.