Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
7 - 8 April 2008, Corvinus University, Budapest, Hungary
Authors
Date
Max Grünig, Ingo Bräuer
20 May 2008
Contact information AquaMoney Partners
AquaMoney
Colophone
This report is part of the EU funded project AquaMoney, Development and Testing of Practical Guidelines for the
Assessment of Environmental and Resource Costs and Benefits in the WFD, Contract no SSPI-022723.
General
Deliverable
D9
Complete reference
Grünig, M., Bräuer, I. Report of the Fourth AquaMoney Plenary Meeting. Corvinus University Budapest, Hungary.
Status
Author(s)
Approved / Released
Max Grünig, Ingo
Date
Comments
Date
Roy Brouwer
Bräuer
Reviewed by
Pending for Review
Second draft
First draft for Comments
Under Preparation
Confidentiality
Public
X
Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Service)
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Advisory Board)
Confidential, only for members of the consortium
Accessibility
Workspace
X
Internet
X
Paper
X
Content
Summary
4
1. Introduction
1
2. Danube river restoration
2
2.1 Common Valuation Design
2
2.2 Case Studies
2
2.2.1
Austrian Case Study
2
2.2.2
Hungarian Case Study
3
2.2.3
Romanian Case Study
4
2.3 Key Methodological Issues
3. Water Scarcity
4
6
3.1 Common Valuation Design
6
3.2 Case Studies
6
3.2.1
Serpis Case Study
6
3.2.2
Italian Case Study
7
3.3 Key Methodological Issues
4. Water Quality Group
8
10
4.1 Common Valuation Design
10
4.2 Case Studies
10
4.2.1
UK Case Study
10
4.2.2
Norwegian Case Study
10
4.2.3
Danish Case Study
11
4.2.4
Netherlands Case Study
12
4.2.5
Belgian Case Study
12
4.2.6
Lithuanian Case Study
13
4.3 French Groundwater Case Study
13
5. Revision of Guidelines
15
6. General discussion and position of AquaMoney in the exemptions debate
17
7. Administration
18
8. Next Steps
19
Annex
Program
20
21
List of participants Plenary Session
25
Summary
• The fourth AquaMoney plenary meeting was held from 7 to 8 April 2008 at Corvinus University Budapest, and was
organised by the Research Institute for Soil and Agricultural Chemistry (RISSAC) and Corvinus University
Budapest (CUB). Twenty-nine project partners from 15 international research institutes participated in the meeting.
Additionally, five members of the Advisory Board participated in the sessions.
• The main objective of the fourth AquaMoney plenary meeting was to present the preliminary case study results, to
discuss key methodological issues, to integrate case study results into the draft guidelines and to discuss the policy
relevance of the case study results.
• The AquaMoney case studies are organized in three main groups, reflecting the key water management issues in the
context of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) across European Member States:
- Water quality with an emphasis on eutrophication and other water pollution problems (Humber-UK,
Morsa-Norway, Odense-Denmark, Scheldt-Netherlands, Scheldt-Belgium, Neris-Lithuania, and the
groundwater case study in the Rhine region in France)
- Ecological restoration of heavily modified water bodies (Danube river basin in Austria, Hungary and
Romania)
- Water scarcity and water resource allocation costs (Jucar-Spain, Guadalquivir-Spain, Tajo-Spain, PoItaly, Pinios-Greece(absent))
• Each thematic group uses a common research design in order to facilitate comparability and tests of transferability of
results.
• Most case studies have started the survey work by now and some are already able to deliver results from the data
analysis. Other case studies are still in the process of pre-testing the survey design or prepare for the final survey.
Based on the data output, value functions will be established allowing benefit transfer (BT) and leading finally to a
GIS-based water value map for Europe. Other outputs will be practical guidelines for practitioners, a checklist for
policy advisors and policy briefs for policy makers.
• Across all three thematic groups, the following common key methodological issues came up:
- non-existence of or only weak distance-decay;
- lack of scope effects (in some instances);
- pessimistic perception of water quality, worse than scientific evidence;
- influence of payment cards on the stated WTP;
- different baseline scenarios (status quo) across the case studies.
• The final results from the case studies will be available by the end of September 2008.
• The next plenary project meeting will be held 15 and 16 October 2008 in Valencia.
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
1.
Introduction
The present report summarises the main results of the fourth AquaMoney plenary meeting in Budapest, Hungary, 7-9
April 2008. AquaMoney (SPPI-022723) is a Specific Targeted Research Project, supported by the European
Commission, DG Research, under the 6th Framework Programme. The Fourth plenary meeting took place at the end of
the second out of three project years and aimed at providing an overview over the current state of the AquaMoney case
studies. Further background information about the project and the foreseen activities can be found at the project website
www.aquamoney.org and in the Description of Work.
The main objectives of the fourth plenary meeting were
• to present the already available case study results,
• to discuss key methodological issues in the case studies,
• to integrate the case study results into the draft guidelines,
• to discuss the policy relevant case study results.
The programme of the meeting and the list of participants are included in the Annex to this report. The presentations at
the meeting are available at the project website. The meeting consisted of two days of plenary sessions with the project
team, where also some members of the Advisory Board were present; and a consecutive one-day Advisory Board
meeting, where some members of the project team also were present.
The plenary sessions of the project team started on Monday with presentations of the common valuation designs
adopted by each of the three thematic groups – Danube river restoration (RO, HU, AT), water scarcity (ES, GR, IT)
and water quality (GB, NL, BE, DK, NO, LT, FR) – in the aftermath of the 3rd plenary meeting. After each of the
common valuation design presentations, the respective thematic groups’ members gave individual reports on the
specific situation of their case study. On Tuesday, key methodological issues of each of the thematic groups were
discussed, followed by an outlook on the role of AquaMoney within the exemptions debate and the project’s policy
relevance, especially regarding non-market benefits, and aggregation in the context of economic valuation of natural
resources. The day continued with the revision of the existing draft guidelines and the integration of the case study
results in the former. A last part was dedicated to administrative issues and to define the next steps to be taken. The
Advisory Board meeting on Wednesday started with an overview of project progress since the first Advisory Board
meeting, a brief summary of each of the thematic groups’ findings, followed by a discussion of the project’s policy
relevance with presentations by Advisory Board members who participated during the 2-day plenary meeting. In the last
session, the integration of case study results in the guidelines and possible approaches to dissemination of these findings
were discussed.
The fourth plenary meeting in Budapest was organised and facilitated by the Research Institute for Soil Science and
Agricultural Chemistry (RISSAC), the Corvinus University Budapest (CUB) and the project coordinator at IVM-VU for
the plenary session and Ecologic for the Advisory Board.
The remainder of this report consists of a summary report of the plenary sessions of the case studies in the three
thematic groups for Water Quality, Water Scarcity and Ecological Restoration and a report of the 2nd Advisory Board
meeting.
1
AquaMoney
2.
Danube river restoration
2.1
Common Valuation Design
The Danube river restoration group includes case studies from Austria, Hungary and Romania. All partners agreed to
follow a common valuation design in order to ensure comparability of results. The common design was presented by
Michael Getzner. It consists of two parts:
• contingent valuation method (CVM), and
• choice experiments (CE) to evaluate specific attributes.
After a short description of the baseline ecological situation of the Danube, being a heavily modified water body in
most parts with many stretches reinforced with stones and concrete, possible renaturation options were shown to the
plenary.
The main objective of the thematic group is to elicit a value of the positive and negative impacts arising from river
restoration projects.
The questionnaire consisted of four parts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
covers respondents perception and attitude related questions;
CV – eliciting the respondent’s willingness to pay (WTP);
CE offering four choices;
socio-economic information on the respondent.
Although the design was applied to all three case studies, the survey was carried by different means in the different
countries: In Austria, respondents were interviewed via internet, while both Romania and Hungary opted for face to
face personal interviews, the reason for this choice being the relatively low internet use in the two latter countries.
2.2
Case Studies
2.2.1
Austrian Case Study
The Austrian Case Study is organised by Markus Bliem from the Institute for Advances Studies Carinthia and Michael
Getzner from the Department of Economics, University of Klagenfurt.
The investigated area is in the Donau-Auen National Park, located east of Vienna. In the survey, a number of possible
restoration measures were presented in pictures. 506 respondents participated in the web-based survey, which was
finalised in November 2007.
The first part of the questionnaire revealed that actual perception of water quality is significantly worse than scientific
evidence tells. Furthermore, respondents were asked to assess the trends in water quality, which a slight majority
perceived as increasing. Additionally, the reasons for flooding were elicited. Surprisingly, the majority of respondents
did not know the value of their water bill.
In the following part, respondents were asked their WTP for two different scenarios: one with a 50% renaturation of
wetlands (mean WTP 27,39EUR and median 8 EUR) and one with a 70% renaturation of wetlands (mean WTP
28,55EUR and median 5 EUR). The pooled sample yields a WTP of 27.96 EUR (median 6 EUR). 18% of respondents
opted for zero bids or ‘don’t know’.
The CE part aims at valuing the improvements in river ecology. Two separate indicators were established:
• flood risk (probability of flooding for communities and agricultural and industrial uses of areas downstream of river
restoration and renaturation measures), and
• water quality (using a selection of different pictograms representing specific water uses like boating, fishing,
swimming, and non-use utility derived from nature).
2
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
Each proposed setting consisted of a pairing of the above indicators and an attached price (in terms of increase in water
bills), thus allowing to convert findings into a WTP. Respondents were shown choice cards with two different settings
(option A and B) and the actual status quo of the case study area, thus allowing respondents to choose between three
settings for each card. Each respondent was shown 4 choice cards. The experiment was run in 8 blocks, resulting in 32
experiments altogether (8*4). In order to combine the levels of the attributes into a limited number of alternative
outcomes, a fractional factorial design was used. The evaluation was done in two MNL-models, one including attributes
only, and one expanded version. The resulting implicit prices (WTP) were 24,07EUR for flooding once every 25 years,
24,73 for flooding every 50 years and 22,49 for flooding every 100 years, 53,84 EUR for a good water quality and
91,43EUR for a very good water quality.
In the following discussion, it became clear that respondents were not shown any pictures of necessary construction for
river renaturation, thus possibly explaining partially the lack of aversion to renaturation and restoration projects.
Arnould Lefébure expressed surprise regarding the fact that water quality was ranked significantly higher than flood
protection in the CE. Furthermore, it was stressed that the way of visualisation affects respondents’ choices: For flood
risk, text only was used, while for water quality, a set of pictograms was shown.
2.2.2
Hungarian Case Study
Zsuzsanna Szerényi presented the results from the Hungarian case study, which was carried out face-to-face between 10
November 2007 and 19 January 2008, resulting in 471 valid questionnaires and a response rate of 52,5% from the Altaér catchment area.
In the first part of the questionnaire, respondents’ opinion and perception were recorded, showing that a large majority
of the respondents (90%) were interested or very interest in environmental issues. Respondents were also asked the
frequency visits to water bodies and the specific use at the site. Additionally, well owners were asked about the main
uses for the abstracted water, where irrigation dominated with over 80%. Surprisingly, a large share of the respondents
(46%) were convinced that water quality in the catchment is poor and 38% believe that the water quality has
deteriorated over the last 10 years, while scientific evidence tells otherwise (good ecological status and clear
improvement). This might explain why 62% of respondents view water quality improvements as ‘very important’.
Another influencing factor for the survey results was that 80% of respondents never experienced flooding, and 60%
believe that flooding will not be relevant in the future either.
Slightly different to the Austrian case study, the options were a 25% to 50% or alternatively a 25% to 90% renaturation
rate (the difference been shown on a map- that is each respondent faced only one scenario). Not surprisingly, the CV
came to relatively low WTP. Especially, 111 respondents or 24% of the sample gave zero bids. The mean WTP was
thus around 24,-EUR, more or less irrespective of the offered scenario (50% or 90%).
In the CE, 74 respondents or 16% chose the current state as their preferred option, of which again 84% had a 0 WTP in
the CV, showing a close link. Distance-decay did not show up in the survey. There was no substantial concern over
flooding issues, thus low WTP / low relevance of the attribute, but significant demand for water quality improvements.
In the ensuing discussion, the influence of the tools on the outcome was discussed, especially the role of the payment
cards for eliciting higher / lower WTP in CV. Since respondents did not have to choose between quality levels or levels
or renaturation, WTP reflects more or less the general attitude towards ecological improvements. It was then also
pointed out that renaturation might also lead to utility losses in terms of recreation, a matter which has not been
addressed in the survey, where no actual measures were introduced at all. It was suggested to approach this as a next
step in a potential web-survey. The debate over the advantages and drawbacks of web-surveys was postponed.
3
AquaMoney
2.2.3
Romanian Case Study
Teodora Palarie presented the progress of the Romanian case study in the Braila islands (Danube). The survey was
conducted 12-17 November 2007 face-to-face and resulted in 519 valid questionnaires using random sampling
techniques (response rate of 61%) ensuring a representative sample.
Again, respondents perceived water quality worse than scientific evidence tells: 44.89% judged water quality to be
‘poor’. Furthermore, 61.27% of respondents believed that the water quality had deteriorated over the last ten years. Both
perceptions collide with scientific evidence. Similarly to the Hungarian case study, two scenarios (50% and 90%
improvement) were presented.
In the CV, zero bids were frequent (32.37% in the 50% scenario and 36.22% in the 90% scenario). The most frequent
reason for not paying at all was financial limitations. Other reasons were among others lack of information and
uncertainty and the feeling of not being responsible for the matter at hand.
The survey can be used as a statistically valid decision support tool for decision-makers, emphasising the major aspects
to be dealt with in order to satisfy participatory needs: water quality is perceived worse than it is. Based on the survey,
water quality is a much more relevant attribute than flooding, which is conform with expectations, as only some 18%
ever experienced flooding. The resulting WTP came down to about 1% of the yearly income, irrespective of the
scenario (50% or 90%).
In the discussion it was pointed out that combining measures and outcomes in one regression analysis, as was suggested
by some participants of the plenary, would create co-linearity in the results and thus reduce its validity. The use of maps
for indicating land use changes was debated, however, the project team argued that local residents are indeed able to
read their area’s maps correctly, which was pretested. It was mentioned that respondents view flood protection, i.e.
flood plains, in the catchment – upstream – as an externality from which residents down-stream profit without paying
the costs, a possible reason for reduced interest in flood protection (see also Hungarian case study).
2.3
Key Methodological Issues
Michael Getzner presented the key methodological issues related to the valuation studies carried out in the Danube restoration group.
These can be grouped into technical issues, methodological issues and policy issues.
Technical issues included the question how good representations such as maps, pictograms and pictures can be understood by lay
people. Furthermore, the issue of pessimistic water quality perception encountered in all three case studies was raised and finally the
question of whether to use web-based or face-to-face surveys was debated. As a possible solution to the dilemma (reduced costs
versus reduced reliability), it was suggested to use a web-based survey and add a face-to-face follow-up.
In the methodological area, the following issues were discussed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
validity of coefficients in CV / CE;
transferability of results, especially under different cultural circumstances (transferability versus comparability);
should benefit transfer (BT) be done along river stretches, between target groups or even between countries;
how to deal with the (non-) existence of distance-decay (for user or non-users);
the influence of payment cards (CV) and bid levels (CE) for the outcome;
combination of water quality and quantity issues;
what to with attributes that are not significant (ignore, delete, change, interpret);
how to identify substitutes for unique places like the Danube river banks;
how to interpret the lack of scope effects (e.g. in Austria);
In the last field, policy issues were raised:
• affordability: what is the national value and policy relevance of certain attributes;
• values from the case studies can not be aggregated;
4
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
It was concluded that for a discussion with scientists, the methodological issues are very valid. On the other hand in
order to assist policy-makers in finding their decision, it is more important to stress the validity of stated preferences
than to focus on the uncertainties since these are attached to all valuation methods.
Furthermore, It was mentioned that people generally value the last step in quality improvement, i.e. from good to very
good or from 50% to 90% at a discounted value. One reason is that the gains in going the last step are not always
understood by lay people: some ecosystem function may only be working in a sustainable and long-lasting manner if
90% are improved in the case of wetlands or the very good state of nature is reached for rivers. Thus, more and
comprehensible information is called for. If the renaturalised areas are kept accessible to the public for recreational
values, then, according to Ian Bateman, this can make up to 60% of the value. Finally, the need to overcome unit values
and switch to value functions was emphasised. Simply scaling up regional results will give misleading information.
5
AquaMoney
3.
Water Scarcity
3.1
Common Valuation Design
Manuel Pulido presented on the common valuation design for the water scarcity group. The main objective of the water
scarcity group is to (environmental) resource (opportunity) costs of water use under scarcity conditions. More
specifically, the group aims at estimating the economic value of increasing river flow levels, i.e. allocating water to the
environment. Additionally, respondents valued the option of supply safety for secondary domestic uses. Lastly, tradeoffs between domestic water supply and the environmental status ought to be addressed. Found results should be tested
for transferability between the case studies. In terms of methodology, the main idea is to assess these benefits that could
have arisen from water allocation to the environment as resource costs.
Four case studies are run in the group: Po (Italy), Lesvos basin (Greece), Serpis and Guadalquivir basins (Spain). A fifth
case study was added from another project: the STRIVER Tajo study by David Barton.
For both the CE and the CV, payments were set as a one time off-payment. The same identical questionnaire was used
in all case studies.
In a first step, respondents were asked about their perception regarding state of water availability and water use. This
part was used as a credibility check to sort out non-credible answers.
In the CE part, 3 attributes were addressed:
• environmental quality,
• guarantee of water supply,
• monetary attribute.
3 blocks of 6 choice cards per respondent depicted 3 levels each for domestic use guarantee and water flow levels.
In the CV part, WTP was open ended for both attributes. Additionally, respondents were asked their main reason for
choosing a certain WTP.
Finally, a set of socio-economic questions concluded the questionnaire.
It was reported that in Greece, CV-CE order effects had occurred on WTP for water use.
3.2
Case Studies
3.2.1
Serpis Case Study
Manuel Pulido continued to present the results from the Serpis basin case study located in the Jucar river basin.
Currently, the case study survey has only been pre-tested in two rounds between 13 and 26 March 2008, resulting in 44
face-to-face interviews.
The water basin has some noteworthy properties, illustrating the poor ecological status: in summer time up to 90% of
river flow is treated waste water, most water bodies are at high risk of not reaching the good ecological status by 2015,
one reservoir – the Beniarrés – suffers from hyper-eutrophication.
The perception analysis showed that only 9% of respondents have experienced use restrictions in the past, none of them
suffers currently from such restrictions. Still, some 60% believe that they will suffer from water cuts in the future. 96%
of respondents judge it important to act against water scarcity and use restrictions. respondents who answered that they
did not believe that water will be scarce in the future were asked to answer this question hypothetically which may have
affected the outcome. On the other hand, around 90% of respondents believed that the scenario of future water threats
due to climate change or demand increases is realistic. In these questions, only a vague ‘future’ is mentioned, while in
6
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
the CE, the question is about next summer. It was proposed to postpone the horizon of the CE to summer 2010 for
better credibility. The water supply baseline should be clarified in the introduction.
A preliminary analysis of the CE showed a dominance of the household water guarantee attribute over the flow. The
results might have been caused by too little difference in the pictograms depicting the various river flow levels. For
increased contrast, the low level could show no fish at all and the intermediate good level could be spared. On the other
hand, the WFD operate with 5 different quality levels, thus calling for a further differentiation. Then it would be
necessary to include more information on the differences.
In the interviews it became apparent that respondents had difficulties in understanding the meaning of the different
guarantee duration options (what happens after the expiration? renewal, new contract or nothing) and the handling of
the one-off payment (some spread the payment over the duration and hence always preferred the choice with the lower
average costs, regardless of duration).
The CV showed mean WTP for both attributes of around 100 EUR with high standard deviations around 90 EUR and
maximum values between 500 and 400 EUR, indicating no clear dominance of either attribute. As 120 EUR was the
maximum value used in the CE, the choice cards might need adjustment to a higher value of about 250 EUR. It was
unclear, whether respondents added up the two values in the CV or answered each question separately. It was suggested
to include a budget constraint reminder. For both attributes, 14% gave a zero bid of which 17% (guarantee) and 33%
(ecology) were protest bids. It was debated whether or not the CV should be kept open ended or whether bid cards
should be introduced.
Some of the respondents started directly into the debate about water resource re-allocation between users and sectors,
although this issue was not part of the survey at all.
In the questionnaire sent out by David Barton, respondents were asked to judge the potential utilisation of the
questionnaire to establish a new water tariff and a majority approved the scheme (65.9%).
In the following discussion it was asked whether, living in a dry climate, the natural state should not reflect this fact and
show lower water levels. Even though ‘very good’ may be difficult to reach in the summer, substantial re-allocation
might render it possible, given that 90% of water is used in agriculture. Trade-offs between different water uses were
explained to respondents. Still, the main idea was to imply water savings in all sectors, shifting the focus from the reallocation debate to the valuation of the environment itself. The question was raised whether or not to present
probabilities for water restrictions in order to facilitate a fact based valuation instead of a perception based one. It was
emphasised that for a valid benefit transfer, verifiable and resilient probabilities under the status quo. The team replied
that the valuation was aiming at respondents’ perception, thus eliminating the need for probabilities. Another issue was
whether the fact that only urban residents were interviewed was implying a non-use valuation only. The team replied
that the valuation valued use and non-use equally. A brief debate followed on whether urban residents consider paying
for saving measures in agriculture (90% of water consumption) and whether this may lead to lower WTP.
3.2.2
Italian Case Study
The Italian case study team has so far pre-tested the CVD in two sub-basins of the Po. On of the difficulties in the Po
area is the significant heterogeneity with a relatively wealthy agriculture. As water scarcity was the main emphasis, two
southerly sub-basins were chosen. To illustrate the political context, it was mentioned that the WFD, so far, has not
been implemented in Italy. Another factor influencing the outcome was that elections were set for 13-14 April 2008.
The pre-test included 30 face-to-face interviews in one sub-basin at the end of March 2008, where 15 respondents
answered questions for the entire Po basin and 15 for the sub-basin only, thus allowing a scope sensitivity analysis.
The perceptions part revealed that, when asked about the three main problems in their area, only one respondent
included water related problems and only 3 answers were environment-related, implying a low sensitivity for water
scarcity. But when asked directly, all respondents judged the environment to be ‘important’ or ‘very important’. Still,
7
AquaMoney
even in the direct question only 23,3% viewed water scarcity as a problem. 96,7% have not experienced water scarcity
in the past and only 10% expect to face it in the future.
The CE with six cards, and especially its introduction, was generally considered as being too lengthy to keep
respondents attention. Furthermore, respondents had difficulties in understanding the meaning of the water guarantee
attribute, specifically as to the effects after the guarantee expiration. The CE resulted in very low payments. The pre-test
shows a dominance of the water guarantee attribute. One of the main concerns expressed by the team stems from the
fact that the status quo on the choice cards was actually worse than the current situation, thus influencing the outcome.
Still, one respondent chose the status quo. When asked about the credibility of the scenario, respondents were split in
two sections: one viewing it ‘credible’ or ‘very credible’ one rather doubting it.
The CV revealed that most respondents did not understand the difference between primary use (which is always
guaranteed) and secondary uses (which they were asked to pay for). As a result, all respondents were willing to pay.
Mean WTP for a 5 year guarantee was 123,50 EUR (s.d. 76,44 EUR). Mean WTP for improved water flow levels was
at 106,67 EUR (s.d. 93,78 EUR). These values are considerably higher than results from previous valuation studies in
the area, where the environment WTP was around 33 EUR. Again, the question was raised whether or not to aggregate
the two WTP or to view them separately. If the two split-samples are analysed separately, then it can be seen that the
values in the sub-basin are considerable higher than those in the Po basin.
In the discussion it was proposed to adjust the status quo to the actual local conditions in order to make the valuation
more credible and allow a benefit transfer of results. Furthermore, the fact that respondents link payments to the
duration of the guarantee led to the result that nobody chooses a one year guarantee. To sum up, the general conclusion
was to simplify the design.
3.3
Key Methodological Issues
Julia Marin-Ortega presented the key methodological issues in the water scarcity group. First, she emphasised the
policy relevance of the group’s findings, since the non-abstraction, i.e. provisioning water for the ecosystem, is
currently not valued at marked prices. Contrary to many other settings, it was found that in countries with water
scarcity, such as Spain, there is usually no link or only a poor link between recreational uses and ecosystem
improvements in rivers and other surface waters, since mostly, recreation takes place in marine waters, which are not
subject to the WFD. Although, it is difficult to tell how recreational uses might develop when ecosystems are restored.
Also, it was found that the question of scale was relevant for the surveys. In Italy, results for the sub-basin differed
widely from the results fro the entire basin. In Spain, three different sizes of river basins are under examination. The
question is thus always, how these results could be transferred at national and even at international scale. In the
common design, a common ecological baseline scenario was chosen, however often misrepresenting the actual state of
nature in the specific case studies. It might be necessary to adjust the baseline scenario to local conditions, even if this
means to sacrifice some transferability.
Furthermore, the two general hypotheses of the water scarcity group might be questioned:
• allocating water to the environment has a value;
• guaranteeing water supply beyond primary uses has a value.
Current results show only a low valuation of allocating water to the ecosystem but high value for water supply security.
This may partly be caused by the wrong impression that primary water supply was linked to the water supply question.
Thus, more information will be needed in the survey. Another factor might be that the public in Southern Europe
generally is less sensitive for environmental themes than in Northern Europe.
In the following discussion, it was emphasised that by proposing improvements, i.e. via choice cards, the scientists
actually influence the outcome. Thus, the survey should not only be reduced to its end-results, but all aspects should be
harvested, including comments of respondents made during the interview.
The team reflected that the survey design may actually be over-simplistic, since ecological status and environmental
benefits are a function of water quality and water quantity.
8
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
In order to assess the possible impact of improved water quality and quantity on recreational uses, it might be helpful to
compare results to the ones from a site where water recreation is already important.
It was criticised that the benefits from water supply security are actually out of scope of the WFD since they do not
relate to the ecological status of the water bodies. Then, what would be the resulting information that can be drawn from
analysing the second hypothesis. It was argued that at least some of the WFD-related measure may actually influence
water supply security as well. In the end, the hypothesis was considered necessary since in all countries with water
scarcity, water supply security is a topic in the public debate, thus allowing to engage respondents very quickly in the
topic. Some people actually have difficulties to talk about the environment without talking about human uses. Thus, this
was a matter of picking-up people where they stand. Also, the inclusion of a second question allowed people to balance
their WTP and thus delivered more accurate numbers for the first hypothesis as well.
The question behind water supply security and water allocation to the ecosystem is of course water re-allocation. As the
team did not want to enter into the debate on how to re-allocate. The second question was considered relevant exactly
since it opened the discussion on allocation, going beyond water valuation.
However, the advisors worried whether the outcome of the project would be relevant for the WFD, since water supply is
granted for all in the Directive, although this may not be true for all countries.
Joaquin Ándreu continued that in the case study it is a matter of improving the in-stream flow while the main water
consumer is the agriculture. resulting in less water supply for agriculture. If the basin authority wants to know the
opportunity costs of reducing water supply, then it could just run their economic models, figure out whether production
losses are higher than opportunity costs of increasing in-stream flow. If they want to measure the benefits, then they use
CV or CE. The value should be independent of the measures. If people are asked how much they want to pay per
month, this should be independent of where the water comes from. If the question is linked to the flow then, the result
will only be the preferences between the in-stream flow and reduced water supply for agriculture. The question should
thus just address the valuation.
It was retorted that when using marked based values, environmental benefits will not be reflected. The link between
hydrology and ecology has to be further explained. This is what the case study is about. Especially, since it adds even
more dimensions to the analysis. Joaquin Ándreu mentioned that in this case, three figures should result from the case
study. Roy Brouwer replied that in the guideline, it will be emphasised that hydro-economic models will be used,
allowing to simulate a market. He pointed out that the lack of robustness is equally present in the market and nonmarket valuations.
Manuel Pulido stressed that the use of purely market-oriented hydro-economic models ignores resource costs which are
significant in countries with scarcity conditions. It was recognised that currently, there are no substitutes to the methods
used in the AquaMoney project.
Josephina Maestu was critical about including hydro-economic modelling, since she feared an erosion of results. The
project team concluded that the project will provide all possible results and leave it to policy makers to decide which
parts to use.
9
AquaMoney
4.
Water Quality Group
4.1
Common Valuation Design
Ian Bateman presented on the common valuation design for the water quality group. The objective was to ensure ease of
application and replicability while recognising unique local conditions. A common methodology was chosen for the CV
part, the information, the validity test (scope test / ordering test / scope and ordering interaction), spatial issues
(distance-decay) and substitutes. In the design, ecological status and use possibilities are combined in the already
established water quality ladder which has been modified to allow a broader application. At this stage, all values are
aggregate over all uses; use-specific values would require a different CE. Thus, benefit transfer between the different
case studies should be facilitated.
4.2
Case Studies
4.2.1
UK Case Study
Ian Bateman continued to present the results from the UK case study which combines revealed preferences (travel
costs) with stated preferences from the CV and CE to estimate the value of water quality change. The study has, so far,
only been pre-tested to assess the acceptance regarding the design. A pilot will be run in April with 100 respondents,
followed by a main survey in May with 1000 respondents, all to be carried out face-to-face. Special emphasis will be
given to optimal spatial sampling in order to better analyse distance-decay effects. Interviews will be assisted by a
computer based valuation application.
In a first section, travel costs were mapped together with visit costs. In the following CV, respondents were able to
choose between three maps illustrating different states of the environment: status quo versus alternatives A and B. One
sub-sample was presented first status quo (SQ) then A, followed by SQ versus B. The other sample started in the
opposite sense with SQ against B. For each question, a WTP was elicited. In the CE, respondents were also shown maps
indicating the river status with a colour scheme from red to blue. In a last section, respondents were asked about their
attitude, especially as to who should be paying for improvements and their main reasons for the made choices, followed
by socio-economic background information.
The goal would be a value-function linking income, location and ecologic status. In the following discussion, it was
asked why status quo was not an option in the CE, which would then require a second CE. Another concern was that no
distinction was made between WFD-related improvements and other measures. The team contested that the emphasis
was more on finding WTP than on the actual policy background. The resulting value function might then be used to
assess any improvements, WFD or not.
4.2.2
Norwegian Case Study
David Barton presented on the progress made in the Norwegian case study. Due to technical issues for which the team
could not be held responsible, the actual survey could not be conducted prior to the meeting. Thus older CE results from
last year were discussed. 286 valid responses were collected in face-to-face interviews of about 15 to 20 minutes. Three
attributes were presented: sight depth and water colour (four levels), algal bloom (four levels) and monetary (5 levels of
increase in water fee). Respondents were given 12 choice cards out of which 2 were meant to test the validity. Each card
presented 4 choices.
An effect-coded model revealed that the maximum price set in the CE might be set too low (4000 KR). Other findings
were that price differences should be more visible, the number of choice cards as well as the choices on the cards
10
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
reduced, the price range extended. Most importantly, the use of a water quality ladder and the use of realistic scenarios
only were proposed. Users were considerably more tolerant to polluted water than non-users.
In the web-based main survey, respondents will be given the choice between two alternative improvement scenarios and
status quo on 10+2 choice cards in the CE. The corresponding CV will follow the common design approach where two
scenarios and the status quo are presented together with the corresponding necessary payments. Next steps will be to
pre-test and test the main survey, to ensure data availability before end of June.
It was debated whether the surveys shall focus on realistic scenarios only - implying higher credibility and policy
relevance - or whether all kinds of settings ought to be presented - implying maximum number of inputs for the
regression. Furthermore, it was clarified that visibility and water quality do not always go hand in hand and that the link
between water quality and biodiversity is also weaker than perceived. The open question remained thus, how to address
these issues in the survey.
4.2.3
Danish Case Study
Berit Hasler presented the progress in the Danish case study in the Odense river basin. The results from the survey are
meant to be used in a CBA of the effects of the WFD in the Odense basin, as part of a Danish research project. Thus,
the case study team was in permanent and close contact with representatives from the Danish ministry of the
environment and the regional environmental authority, but there were no commitments to end-users. The survey aims at
delivering the benefits as input into the CBA. The results from the case study will be valuable inputs into the discussion
on exemptions. It follows that valuation results ought to be robust enough to hold in an exemptions assessment.
The survey was and will be conducted by Gallup via the internet, resulting finally in four times 350 responses in four
sub-samples: the entire river basin, the fjord, the lakes and the main river. In each sub-sample, the survey started with
an introductory part on water and the environment and introductory questions, then came the CV, followed by the CE
and concluded with follow-up questions for some respondents. A pilot study for the river was conducted in January
2008 with 350 respondents, out of which 12 participated in follow-up interviews. The entire survey will be ready end of
June, with results analysed in August / September. Focus in the pilot was less on exact representativeness of samples
than on geographical diversity, this will be amended in the final survey.
Again, the CV was based on water quality maps and payment cards, where some maps only covered 15 km short river
stretches, while others included the entire river. The resulting WTP was 440 DKK per household per year for a GES in
the entire river and 320 DKK for a 15 km river stretch. It was found that WTP decreased with distance from 10 to 20
km, but increases afterwards, contradicting theory. A relatively large number of respondents were excluded as protest
bidders out of which 60 persons apparently did not understand the survey and 40 were pure protesters.
CE choice cards depicted the status quo and two alternative scenarios. The analysis differentiated between non-users
(including seldom users) and users with respective WTP of 2059 DKK and 1731 DKK per household per year for the
entire river, while WTP for individual stretches (7) were considerably lower. It was concluded that the number of
stretches (currently 7) should be reduced.
In the follow-up interviews, it became clear that the survey is at the same time simplifying a complex issue and itself
rather complex. Still, all 12 respondents judged the survey to be comprehensive.
In the following discussion, one of the main topics was the question of scope relevance: It was argued that 15 km may
already be a too long river stretch as there will be no linear correlation. Ian Bateman replied that in most cases water
valuation will not be linear anyway, since income distribution decreases with distance within the city and then increases
again, thus counterfeiting distance-decay partly. Regarding representativeness, it was pointed out that this may be less
relevant than having a sufficiently varied response, while making sure that all relevant groups are covered to some
degree, implying a less formal understanding of representativeness. Finally, the question of distance decay was
discussed again: As seen, the Odense team had found out that valuation may rise again after a certain distance. Possible
explanations are that respondents start to view the proposed improvements more exemplary and less linked to the actual
11
AquaMoney
location, but it could also be a self-selection bias. Respondents may believe that a high valuation for the improvement
elsewhere renders an improvement in their river more likely as well. It was also recognised that the difference between
good and very good water quality was not always easily perceived. The total number of attribute in the CE (7) was
considered too high and it was recommended to reduce the number in order to emphasise the differences.
4.2.4
Netherlands Case Study
Marie Schaafsma presented the progress made in the Scheldt case study in the Netherlands, where the main research
objectives were to analyse substitution between improvements in different sites and related cross-effects. General and
individual utility functions will be compared in the case study. In the general model, general parameters for walking,
swimming, nature and price will be used, while in the individual model, site-specific parameters will be used.
In the CE, each respondent has to choose between four different options: three locations and one opt-out. Out of the
three, only one was to be improved, while status quo data was given for all sites. Each site is described by different
settings of the four parameters, while distance is an implicit attribute. Pictures and text are used to illustrate the quality
levels. Still, the design is perceived as large and complex. The question was again, how much variation will be required
necessarily in the sample. The preliminary results indicate that the site-specific models perform better than the general
one: all site-specific parameters were significantly different for each site, except for price. For all attributes, sensitivity
to scope was observed. Furthermore, distance has clear impact on choice probabilities, either logarithmic or quadratic.
The resulting distance-decay curves were showed anomalies for the Breskens and the Saeftinghe locations, where
values re-increased after some distance, i.e. the functions had global or local extrema in the interval under examination.
The question is obviously to re-examine the underlying data, but subsequently, shall this not help, look for other
explanations. Both users and non-users show a distance-decay effect, although the number of non-users was relatively
low.
Future steps will be to include the distance to substitutes (cross-effects), explore the possibility to use different data for
users and non-users. Also, it will be important to find out which distances actually matter for distance decay:
geographical distances, travel time distances, felt distance or familiarity. It was argued that in reality, distance might be
a misleading parameter, since people may actually value other factors like family or friends in the area etc., so the actual
use may matter much more than a general parameter. It was noted that quadratic distance decay would be quite
improbable. Furthermore, it was thought that non-users might show some kind of distance-decay as well.
4.2.5
Belgian Case Study
Inge Liekens presented the progress made in the Belgian case study in the river Dender, a tributary to the Scheldt,
characterised by mostly recreational use, although being of moderate water quality (yellow). The survey was conducted
via internet on the basis of invitation letters sent out to a representative sample of 5000. By coding the invitation letters,
the team was able to track back all responses to their place of residency, thus facilitating the distance-decay analysis.
348 responses were collected, although respondents were giving financial incentives for participation. Thus, in a second
attempt, a larger number of emails were sent out, resulting in another 359 responses, albeit at a lower response rate. The
rate of completion of the questionnaire once it has been started is considerably high: 64%. The total of completed
questionnaires is currently at 480, the remainder of questionnaires being in the process of completion. Both the e-Mail
and the address of residency based samples are highly misrepresentatives. In total 14% were zero bidders, out of which
36% were protest bidders and 64% valid zero bidders, indicating a relatively low protest rate.
The team applied the common design to its CV - with two alternative scenarios for the entire river stretch against the
status quo - and added a CE which was differentiated according to WTP for different ecological goods and introduced
spatial refinement. The main focus of the study was the recreational us and non-use of an improvement in water quality.
The five attributes were water quality (driving force), off-stream recreation, in-stream recreation, biodiversity (non-use)
and the price. For each attribute three scope levels of improvement were defined, except for price, which had six values.
The CE choice cards offered three different locations on the Dender and an opt-out option, just like the NL case study.
Pictures and text were used to illustrate the different ecologic quality levels.
12
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
The CV resulted in WTP between 66,71€ and 71,76€ for the two proposed scenarios, while the CE resulted in WTP for
off-stream recreation at 15€/per annum and household and 30€ for biodiversity using a simple discreet choice
multinomial logit model.
In the ensuing debate, the pictures chosen to illustrate the scenarios were criticised. It was questioned how a concrete
wall (indicating HMWB) and gentle river slopes relate to the WFD, especially since ecological status was not part of
the attribute selection, but is the main objective of the WFD. It was discussed whether the choice of attributes was
conform with the research needs, since in some cases better ecological status may actually imply less off-stream
recreation, since the water front may no longer be accessible. Then again it was argued that an overall nicer landscape
would effectively increase off-stream recreation.
4.2.6
Lithuanian Case Study
Daiva Semeniene presented the main findings of the Lithuanian case study in the Neris sub-basin - including two lakes part of the Nemunas river basin. The pre-test took place 18 - 22 February, the survey, run by TNS-Gallup in face-toface interviews, and was held 12 -26 March. The actual situation corresponds more or less to the one after all non-WFD
measures would have been implemented. Thus the comparison is more or less between today and post-WFD.
Both the national part and the common design used CV method, thus there was no CE part in the survey. 500
respondents were interviewed in 29 sites for the main survey using random sampling. The pre-testing included 21
responses.
The national part consisted of two scenarios: one was asking WTP for water quality improvements, another one
eliciting WTP for water quality improvement and river remeandering.
Similarly, the common design part consisted of two scenarios: one eliciting WTP for water quality improvement in one
lake and another one asking WTP for water quality improvement in two lakes.
Each water quality improvement scenario has four attributes: biodiversity value, landscape value, recreational value,
quality level increase from yellow to blue (two levels).
The pre-test indicates that people value lake restoration higher than remeandering, possibly, since the latter is a fairly
new concept and considered to be rather expensive. The results from the pre-test give already an indication on the order
of magnitude of WTP in the main survey: values range between 6 and 15 LTL per year. Zero bidders declined in some
instances responsibility for the environment and hold the government responsible.
4.3
French Groundwater Case Study
Jean-Daniel Rinaudo presented the situationin the French groundwater case study, located in the Rhine catchment. As
groundwater protection differs widely from surface water protection, the case study is set apart from all others and will
not follow the common design. Thus, additional effort has to be taken by the case study team in order to conduct the
entire survey on their own. Two main issues come together in the case study setting: HMWB (Rhine) and groundwater
restoration. As costs for programmes are very likely to be very high, it seems possible that exemptions will be granted.
Thus, main policy needs are: (i) demonstrate how values vary accros aquifers; (ii) identify factors explaining variation
in benefits; (iii) provide recommandations for transfering values. One of the main obstacles for an assessment of the
costs and benefits is the severe lack of data regarding groundwater acquifers and their benefits. These depend on the
characteristics of each acquifer, the water quality, the level of abstraction, the anticipated future uses, the existence of
substitutes and the characteristics of current users. But the value depends also on the buffer value (as acquifers buffer
water to compensate for water supply changes), the level of geological protection (making the acquifer a source of
water in emergency situations), other ecological services (contribution to the river flow, wetlands etc.), direct
recreational services and the average water supply capacity (quantity and quality).
13
AquaMoney
The case study team thus proposes an expert-based multicriteria tool allowing to rank acquifers according to their total
economic value (TEV), including:
1. criteria on the acquifer
2. criteria on socio-economic
3. ecologic criteria
4. costs of alternatives
The team will thus conduct CV in 3 different acquifers (with different TEV). Afterwards, the results can be compared to
the value obtained from the expert ranking. Furthermore, the impact of providing additional information for the
respondents on the stated WTP
will be examined. Finally, a scope test to compare two water quality scenarios impacts on stated WTP will be
conducted. Thus, the case study will be able to give recommendations for CBA realted to groudnwater protection.
In the following discussion, the question came how to link groundwater and surface water assessment. It was recognised
that groundwater constitutes a very crucial water supply not only in France but also in many other countries. It was
emphasised that acquifer water quality in the end depends largely on the feeding rivers’ water quality. One frequent link
between overground and underground waters are indeed flood plains. The case study team is fully aware of these links,
but will have to restrict the analysis to the set scope in order to be able to deliver results in time. Further research will be
needed to foster knowledge in the field of groundwater protection.
14
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
5.
Revision of Guidelines
Roy Brouwer opened the discussion on the revision of the guidelines, based on the preliminary results from the case
studies and the ongoing debates in the plenary. Firstly, he reminded the team of the three different target groups and
objectives:
• technical guidelines for practitioners (focus on key issues, technical content);
• terms of reference for policy advisors (focus on standard approach, semi-technical);
• policy briefs for policy makers (focus on utility, non-technical).
The technical guidelines for practitioners focus on key issues:
• aggregation
• user vs. non-user
• scope
• substitution
• distance decay
All these issues have been identified in the case studies, so no need to revise the guidelines. Still, the level of detail of
the guidelines is important to define. Also, the question whether CV or CE are more reliable for BT and other secondary
issues such as payment mode, the communication of risk and uncertainties, the inclusion of the baseline scenario etc.
were discussed. It was also debated with how much depth these secondary questions should be treated.
The primary results indicate that CE delivers smaller errors and hence might be better suited for BT (see Guadalquivir
case study). Roy Brouwer mentioned that Australian research indicates that more choice cards entail higher stated
values. Furthermore, the question of how to address protesters in CE - both identification and treatment - is an open
question, mostly due to lack of prior research in this field. The main question being of course at which point the rate of
protesters corrupts the overall results. When it comes to the analysis of the survey data, it is still unclear which
statistical models would be best suited.
In the ensuing discussion, David Barton stressed that in the beginning it would be essential to realise what the main
objectives are. He proposed to prepare two sets of guidelines: one very detailed for internal use and a shorter version for
dissemination.
Ian Bateman stated that AquaMoney was great in bringing together European expertise, but will not be able to tackle all
the issues listed. It would be premature to recommend one method over the other. Currently, research in CE is moving
very fast. Still, it has not been tested as much as CV, and problems encountered in CV may also show up in CE.
Furthermore, WTP numbers in CE seem to be very high. As there is only limited data available, there is no real
possibility to run external testing (against other studies), so the team can just test the internal consistency of the results.
E.g. there has been a series of studies in the UK on the prices of water charges including CV and CE. The results from
CV have been accepted by policy makers, not those from CE (so called laugh test). CE seems to be working fine to get
the relative magnitude correct in order to divide up an external given budget, but WTP from CE are just not as robust as
results from CV.
Ingo Bräuer concluded that as especially CV offers many statistical methods, everybody should use the method he is
best at.
John Joyce questioned whether CE could handle the complexity of the good. He conceded that it is certainly good to get
people to think about the situation. So maybe CE is best to get people to think about the problem, but CV best to get
reliable WTP figures.
Leo de Nocker proposed that policy makers could use the guidelines to check what they can expect from CV and CE
and better understand the results the methods can deliver.
15
AquaMoney
Roy Brouwer proposed to group the issues as proposed already by David Barton. AquaMoney is definitely too limited
to assess all the issues. Ian Bateman replied that the money needed for WFD implementation is so enormous, that the
benefit-costs ratio of the present research is so astronomical, there should be more research, the money at risk being too
high. Roy Brouwer concluded that the team can flag up issues but cannot perhaps provide prescriptions for all of them.
Michael Getzner added that if he was a policy maker, he would like to see some prescription at least. Roy Brouwer
concluded that the team will endeavour to list all the necessary components, but may not be able to answer all
questions. Still, it might be helpful to give at least an indicative range as an answer, where possible. It may be helpful to
give for example combinations of different rates (response / protest), that indicate problems. For example, one could be
concerned after reaching 20% of protesters. In the end, the present research team can still give some kind of best guess,
as they are all experts on water, they should be able to give some kind of guidance.
Arnould Lefébure advised that the team is a very small club of economists. Policy makers will expect a lot from the
project. Even people without economic background will rely on the results. And because they are so few, they can
create a lot, but they also risk to be overheard if the final product is not concrete and practical.
Richard Ready stated that there are no strict lines in the US, EPA guidelines (US) set out a framework for the quality of
CE and CV.
Oskar Larsson noted that the main risk would be to be only descriptive and thus yield a very low added value to the
discussion.
Roy Brouwer will send out a first draft of key issues to be included in the checklist for policy advisors and wait for
further feedback. Still, he is opposed to merely repeating other guidelines, especially since this was not in the
description of work, thus is not part of the main objectives. Rather, he would like to focus on issues that have not yet
been addressed as there are already a lot of guidelines on water valuation.
Arnould Lefébure replied that most people quit reading guidelines after 10 pages, because they are far too complex. The
WFD process is so fast that people need reliable and practical guidance.
Roy Brouwer concluded that this implies a need for practical guidelines for the team and additional general features for
dissemination, supported by the policy briefs.
Finally, Arnould Lefébure emphasised that the public participation aspect of all the surveys in the project was very
exceptional. Complimentary financing might be possible, as the project was helping to spread water concerns in the
general population. It was pointed out that AquaMoney was valid and unique multinational European opinion poll on
environmental valuation and water concerns.
16
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
6.
General discussion and position of AquaMoney in the
exemptions debate
Ingo Bräuer presented reflections on the previous discussions, especially regarding the broader picture, i.e. the role of
the AquaMoney project within the Article 4 exemptions debate. He emphasised the need to find a consensus and to
address questions together. He argued that if the status quo for the CV or CE in the case studies will be too low, then the
results from the study will be compromised. One of the questions was, whether it would be necessary to highlight to
respondents what they would actually lose with the payment both in terms of lost utility due to budget constraints and
possibly also in terms of lost recreational utility due to access restrictions linked to water protection. When more than
one question is asked, it becomes relevant to avoid double counting of WTP. The project team will finally have to
decide between increased statistical power of the study and the use of only meaningful questions and scenarios.
In one case study, respondents’ privacy was undermined resulting in a loss of confidentiality, possibly putting at risk the
survey’s results. Hence, it will be necessary to find a solution to this situation.
Regarding the general project outline, he recommended to disclose all weaknesses frankly, otherwise, these drawbacks
will only be discovered later on and thus backfire on the reputation of the entire project.
It was observed that some case studies used web-based interviews, while others relied on face-to-face. As both
techniques have drawbacks and advantages alike, none of it is to be considered superior. However, it could be helpful to
give some recommendations on the issue. Leo de Nocker detailed that costs of their internet survey were actually higher
than originally foreseen. Still, their bias was lower than expected. Hence it would be interesting to see what other case
studies have experienced in terms of costs and bias for web and personal interviews. David Barton suggested including
the costs as a parameter in the final guidelines: if all case studies could report their costs, then it would be possible to
adjust results by the costs incurred.
Stale Navrud pointed out that the populations for the sample differ widely between web and face-to-face, resulting in
significant differences in bias and reliability. The Hungarian case study thus proposes to use both approaches in order to
cover all populations. Ingo Bräuer then proposed that every case study writes down a few figures regarding exits,
protests etc. before the next meeting.
Josephina Maestu came back to the overall suitability of sites for the specific analysis: if WTP for water quality is
assessed, then it would be helpful to have at least some water recreation in the area, same reasoning for water scarcity
etc. She emphasised the need to show the validity of the results.
David Barton proposed to plan for a worst case scenario, where credibility of the project’s results is near zero. Still, the
project would have a significant value deriving from the numerous dose response relations, displaying not only the
monetary valuation, but also a wide range of non-monetary. Respondents i.a. gave information on their perception of
the status quo and their perception of future pressures and impacts. The project harvests reactions of respondents to
different levels of status quo in the different case studies. This set of information is very valuable for policy makers
Europe wide.
In the following section, Ingo Bräuer informed the project team about the current situation in the European exemptions
debate. He emphasised the high hopes that lie on the project outcome. While AquaMoney is assessing environmental
benefits, these are nothing else than the costs of non-action discussed in the CIS working group on exemptions.
He also pointed out that the discussion is still including affordability considerations (that is distributional), while
AquaMoney was focussing on efficiency and cost effectiveness in the framework of CBA. The project is thus of very
crucial European relevance, since it can help to improve reliability of CBA, which is - at least from the second planning
cycle on - one of the cornerstones of applications for exemptions.
17
AquaMoney
7.
Administration
The project coordinator briefly informed the project partners about the state of play regarding the first annual report and
his contacts with Brussels about the AquaMoney project. So far only the AquaMoney kick-off meeting in Amsterdam
was attended by a scientific officer from DG Research (Mr. Zissimos Vergos). The new scientific officer from DG
Research, Mr. Balabanis, was invited to the second, third and fourth plenary meeting but was unable to attend on these
occasions.
The coordinator reminded the project team about the necessity to hand in the 2nd progress report until 25 April at the
latest. Regarding the cost recovery for the CE course in Amsterdam attended by some of the team partners, there was
still some confusion about whether or not this would be possible.
18
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
8.
Next Steps
The project coordinator reminded the team that the case study report was originally due end of April 2008 (month 24).
Although some delay was allowed, partners shall respect the new deadline of end of September. At this point, it will be
necessary to also provide the best practice recommendations, which are due month 30 (September). Also, the team was
asked to prepare input for the Valencia workshop on best practice recommendations for ERC assessment on 15 and 16
October 2008 for which names of EU experts will be needed until 31 May 2008.
Based on the results from the case studies, transferability will be tested for the three thematic groups separately:
• ecological restoration (Roy Brouwer & Markus Bliem)
• water scarcity (Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega)
• water quality (Ian Bateman & David Barton & Stale Navrud)
Finally, a GIS-based value map will be established by Alfred Wagtendonk, displaying the non-market use and non-use
values related to different WFD water quality levels in European water bodies.
19
AquaMoney
Annex
20
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
Program
Program
Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
Budapest 7-9 April 2008
Main objectives:
•
•
•
•
Main outputs:
Presentation case study results
Discussion of the key methodological
issues in the case studies
Integration of the case study results in
the draft guidelines
Discussion policy relevance case study
results
•
•
•
•
•
Agreement on the inclusion of case study results
in the draft guidelines
Selection of additional guideline authors for
specific issues/themes/aspects
Consultation of the Advisory Board
Report of the fourth plenary AquaMoney meeting
Report of the second Advisory Board meeting
Meeting venue:
Room 3001
Corvinus University Budapest
Fővam Tér, 8. 1093
Budapest
Phone: + 36-1 482-5423
Local organisers:
Mr. Simon Milton
Corvinus University Budapest
Phone:++36208022434
simon.milton@uni-corvinus.hu
Co-ordinator:
Dr. Roy Brouwer
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Phone: + 31 (0)20 5985608
roy.brouwer@ivm.vu.nl
21
AquaMoney
Monday 7 April 2008 – Day 1: Plenary Session project team
09.30- 09.40
Official opening – Dr. Csaba Nemes,
Head of Strategic Unit, Hungarian Ministry for Environment and Water
09.40-11.00
Presentation of the case study results
09.40-10.05
Hungary
10.05-10.30
Romania
10.30-11.00
Austria
Danube ecological restoration
common valuation design
11.00-11.30
Coffee/tea break
11.30-13.00
Presentation of the case study results
11.30-12.00
Italy
12.00-12.30
Spain
12.30-13.00
Greece
Water scarcity
common valuation design
13.00-14.00
Lunch University Restaurant
14.00-15.30
Presentation of the case study results
14.00-14.30
UK
14.30-15.00
Norway
15.00-15.30
Denmark
Water quality
common valuation design
15.30-16.00
Coffee/tea break
16.00-18.00
Presentation of the case study results
19.00
End of day 1
22
16.00-16.30
Netherlands
16.30-17.00
Belgium
17.00-17.30
Latvia
17.30-18.00
France
Water quality
common valuation design
Dinner & wine - A38 boat ( Petőfi Bridge, Buda side)
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
Tuesday 8 April 2008 – Day 2: Plenary Session project team
09.30-12.30
Summary key methodological issues case studies
09.30-10.00
Ecological restoration
10.00-10.30
Water scarcity
10.30-11.00
Water quality
11.00-11.30
Coffee/tea break
11.30-13.00
Key methodological issues and their policy relevance
11.30-12.00
12.00-13.00
Role of AquaMoney in the WFD Exemptions debate
Policy relevance: non-market benefits, transferability, distance-decay &
aggregation
13.00-14.00
Lunch University Restaurant
14.00-15.30
Revision / integration of case study results in draft guidelines
- reconsideration key methodological issues
- selection of good practice examples
- identification of additional guideline authors
- ideas about GIS based value maps
15.30-16.00
Coffee/tea break
16.00-17.00
Planning of next steps & administrative issues
- finalization case study reports & transfer tests
- revision/extension draft guidelines & integration case study examples
- policy briefs
- invitation external experts for expert workshop in Amsterdam
- 2nd progress report
18.30 – 21.00
Advisory Board Dinner (with remaining participants)
Walhalla Club Restaurant (Budapest VII. Dohány u. 1/a)
End of day 2
23
AquaMoney
Wednesday 9 April 2008 – Day 3: Advisory Board meeting
09.30-12.30
Information: summary case studies
09.30-10.00
Summary progress since first meeting (R Brouwer)
10.00-10.30
Overview case study results: ecological restoration (Z Flachner)
10.30-11.00
Overview case study results: water scarcity (M Skourtos)
11.00-11.30
Coffee/tea break
11.30-13.00
Information: summary case studies and their policy relevance
11.30-12.00
Overview case study results: water quality (I Bateman)
12.00-12.15
Short feed back policy relevance ecological restoration (Oskar Larsson)
12.15-12.30
Short feed back policy relevance water scarcity (Josefina Maestu)
12.30-12.45
Short feed back policy relevance water quality (Arnold Lefébure)
13.00-14.00
Lunch
14.00-15.30
Consultation: integration case study results in guidelines & communication
14.00-14.20
Introduction policy relevance key issues (I Bräuer)
Discussion where the AB is asked to advise the project team about the next steps:
-
reconsideration of key methodological issues and their policy relevance
-
use of the case studies to show the policy relevance of AquaMoney
-
selection of good practice examples
-
policy maker need for concrete guidelines in policy briefs or a ToR
15.30-16.00
Coffee/tea break
16.00-17.00
Consultation continued, concrete suggestions and recommendations
Concrete suggestions and recommendations regarding:
- the finalization of the technical guidelines for practitioners
- possibly a ToR for policy advisors, and
- policy briefs for policy makers
as part of the wider AquaMoney communication strategy
End of day 3
END OF THE FOURTH PLENARY AQUAMONEY MEETING
24
Report of the Fourth Plenary AquaMoney Meeting
List of participants Plenary Session
Nr
Name
Email
Institute
1
JOHN JOYCE
wfdbenefits@gmail.com
Independent consultant
2
t.huysmans@vmm.be
Vlaamse Milieu Maatschappij (VMM)
alefebure@isc-cie.com
Secretary General International Scheldt Commission (ISC)
4
TOM HUYSMANS
ARNOULD
LEFEBURE
JOSEFINA
MAESTU
jmaestu@mma.es
Spanish Ministry for the Environment
5
OSKAR LARSSON
Henrik.Scharin@naturvardsverket.se Environmental Protection Agency Sweden
6
INGE LIEKENS
7
DAVID BARTON
david.barton@niva.no
Norwegian Insitute for Water Research
IAN BATEMAN
MARIJE
SCHAAFSMA
i.bateman@uea.ac.uk
University of East Anglia
marije.schaafsma@ivm.vu.nl
IVM, Institute for Environmental Studies
3
8
9
VITO - Flemish institute for technological research
10 MANUEL PULIDO
UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE VALENCIA
11 MERI RAGGI
LAURA
12 SARDONINI
meri.raggi@unibo.it
DEIAGRA – UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA
laura.sardonini@unibo.it
13 ALEX DUBGAARD
MICHAEL
14 GETZNER
JEAN-DANIEL
15 RINAUDO
Alex.Dubgaard@flec.kvl.dk
DEIAGRA – UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA
Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of
Copenhagen
Dept. Of Economics, Klagenfurt University
jd.rinaudo@brgm.fr
bliem@carinthia.ihs.ac.at
16 MARKUS BLIEM
JULIA
MARTIN
julia.martin-ortega@ivm.vu.nl
17 ORTEGA
BRGM (France)
Institute for Advanced Studies Carinthia
University of Cordoba
18 SIMON MILTON
simon.milton@uni-corvinus.hu
Corvinus University, Budapest
19 ROY BROUWER
roy.brouwer@ivm.vu.nl
IVM, Institute for Environmental Studies
20 SANDOR KEREKES
ZSUZSANNA
zsuzsanna.szereniy@uni21 SZERENYI
corvinus.hu
DAIVA
daiva@aapc.lt
22 SEMENIENE
ZSUZSANNA
23 FLACHNER
Corvinus University, Budapest
RISSAC (HUN)
24 INGO BRAEUER
braeuer@ecologic.de
Ecologic
25 MAX GRUENIG
TEODORA
26 PALARIE
GEAMANA
27 NICOLETA
max.gruenig@ecologic.eu
Ecologic
palarie_teo@yahoo.com
Bucharest University
28 LEO DE NOCKER
leo.denocker@vito.be
Corvinus University, Budapest
Lithuanian center for Environmental studies
Bucharest University
VITO - Flemish institute for technological research
29 RICHARD READY
Pennsylvania State University
30 LUDA SZILVIA
Corvinus University, Budapest
31 MARIA TARNAI
Corvinus University, Budapest
32 BERIT HASLER
JOAQUIN
33 ÁNDREU
BEGONA
34 ALVAREZ
CARSTEN
35 NILSSEN
bh@dmu.dk
National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University
Institute of Water and Environmental Engineering, Valencia
Center for Human and Social Science, Spain
University of Copenhagen
25