DENMARK
Assessing Economic Benefits of Good Ecological Status under the
EU Water Framework Directive. Testing practical guidelines in
Odense River basin
CASE STUDY REPORT
Illustration: Maps of Odense River basin and Odense River used for the valuation
in the Danish case study
.
B. Hasler, S.L. Brodersen, L.P. Christensen, T. Christensen, A.
Dubgaard, H.E.Hansen, M. Kataria, L.Martinsen, C. J. Nissen, A. F.
Wulff
12 March 2009
WP4 – TESTING OF THE PRACTICAL GUIDELINES IN REPRESENTATIVE EUROPEAN PILOT
RIVER BAINS. WP Leaders: Joaquín Andreu and Manuel Pulido, Technical Univ. of Valencia, Spain
Table of Contents
Policy summary………. ..................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgement ...........................................................................................................................5
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................6
2. Description of the case study .......................................................................................................6
2.1. Location of the case study area, including sampling area
6
2.2. The sampling
8
2.3 Water system characteristics
9
2.4 Short characterization of water use and water users
11
3. Set up of the survey....................................................................................................................15
3.1. Questionnaire design (common)
16
4. Valuation results ........................................................................................................................24
4.1. Non-respondent characteristics
24
4.2. Respondent characteristics and sample representativeness
26
4.2. Public perception of water management problems
30
4.3. Estimated economic values for water resource management
31
4.4. Factors explaining economic values for water resource management
32
4.5. Total Economic Value
39
5. Conclusions................................................................................................................................42
6. Best practice recommendations .................................................................................................44
References......................................................................................................................................48
Appendix A. The questionnaire (In Danish)..................................................................................50
Appendix B. The generic water quality ladder used in the common valuation in AQUAMONEY
........................................................................................................................................................73
2
Policy summary
The study.
The main objective of this study was to estimate the benefits of improvements of the
ecological status of Odense River according to the water framework directive. The survey
focused on households’ recreational use of water bodies and their willingness to pay for
improvements of the ecological status of Odense River.
An internet survey was conducted on 754 households in Funen and the municipalities of
the Southern Danish region in the summer of 2008. The valuation methods used are
contingent valuation and choice experiments, and the aim of the valuation is to capture
recreational use values as well as non‐use values.
The improvements valued were good and very good water quality, and the initial
conditions of the river are moderate water quality, according to the classification in the
Water Framework Directive. As a part of the study we paid attention to evaluate at what
distance from the improved river households willingness to pay falls to zero, as this
estimation is necessary to determine the population who benefits from the effects of the
measures under the Water Framework Directive in this particular river
The report
In this case study report we consider the Odense River, being the main river in the
Odense River basin at Funen. As part of a wider Danish study the benefits of similar
improvements of the 10 largest lakes at Funen, Odense Fjord and the whole river
catchment are also considered, using the same questionnaire and valuation design as in
the Odense River case study. Valuation data will be available in 2009 for all these water
bodies (illustrated on the cover), as well as for Roskilde fjord at Zealand in the eastern
part of Denmark, where the same design is applied for valuation of the Water Framework
Directive effects.
Valuation of the benefits of the Water Framework Directive.
The present study is the first economic valuation of the benefits of attaining “good and
very good ecological status” in water bodies in Denmark.
Results
Willingness to pay per household per year, including sensitivity to scope: The
sensitivity to scope is tested by asking of the WTP for improvements of the whole river
versus one stretch of the river. The stretch is located outside Odense city, and is 15 km
out of the total of 60 km. With the contingent valuation method the mean willingness to
pay for an improvement in Odense River to good ecological status is estimated for a short
improvement (15 km out of Odense River which is approx. 60 km long) to be 323 DKK
3
(43 EURO) per household per year. For the large improvement (the whole river) the
equivalent is estimated to be 479 DKK (64 EURO) per household per year.
Hence, households’ willingness to pay is sensitive to the magnitude of the improvement,
i.e. whether the whole river is improved or only a minor part. However, the internal scope
is much stronger than the external, which is tested by introducing the short and the large
improvement first in two split samples, and subsequently asking about the long/short
improvement. The respondents answering the long improvement first and then the short
have a significantly lower WTP for the smallest improvement, while this difference is not
significant for the other part of the sample receiving the smallest improvement first.
With the CE method the mean WTP for obtaining “good” valuing the river in three
stretches is estimated to be 1053 DKK (141 EURO) per household per year for the whole
river (329 + 467 + 257DKK). To obtain “very good” quality of the water the mean WTP
is estimated to be 1430 DKK (192 EURO) per household per year (582 + 545 +303
DKK). Valuing the whole river at once gives a mean WTP, for “good” status, 430 DKK
(58 EURO) per household per year. Surprisingly there is a lower estimated WTP for a
higher water quality as to obtain “very good” status the WTP is 423 DKK (57 EURO) per
household per year. These results imply no scope sensitivity as the respondents are
willing to pay the same amount for 1/3 of the river as for the whole river.
Households in Denmark currently pay on average DKK 4000/yr (533 Euro) per
household for water and sanitation.
Distance decay and spatial extent of willingness to pay. Estimated with the contingent
valuation method the willingness to pay drops by 1.53 DKK/kilometre for the short
improvement and 2.31 DKK/kilometre for the large improvement. This means that for the
short improvement the radius of households affected by the improvement is 144 km,
while it is 212 km for the large improvement. The larger distance for the large
improvement despite the faster drop, is caused by the higher mean WTP.
Total Willingness to pay: The total economic value (TEV) is calculated using the
estimated distance decay function. Alternatively, aggregation could have been done
within the administrative/political region. For the CV, the TEV for the short improvement
to obtain a good quality, is estimated to be between 138-150 million DKK per year (1820 million EURO). For the large improvement the TEV is estimated to be between 200223 million DKK per year (27-30 million EURO). For the CE, the TEV is more than 3
times as large as for the CV to obtain a good quality, 489 million DKK per year (66
million EURO). To obtain a very good quality (using CE) the TEV is 664 million DKK
per year (89 million EURO).
4
Berit Hasler (NERI, Aarhus University) led the Danish case study and carried out the
analyses together with Louise Martinsen (NERI), Tove Christensen (FOI), Carsten Junker
Nissen (FOI) and Alex Dubgaard (FOI) (study design), Sisse Liv Brodersen (NERI),
Anders Fonnesbech Wulff (NERI) and Leise Pil Christensen (NERI) (CV-estimations)
and Mitesh Kataria (NERI) (CE-estimations). Gregor Levin (NERI) and Sickan Flindt
Ibsen (NERI) designed the maps and carried out the GIS-based distance calculations.
Henriette Engel Hansen (NERI) assisted carrying out the pilot survey, and used the pilot
survey data for Choice experiment estimations in her master thesis in economics (Hansen,
2008, Copenhagen University). Leise Pil Christensen (NERI) used the CV data from the
main survey for her bachelor thesis in economics (Copenhagen University).
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge Stig Eggert Pedersen, Harley Madsen and Susanne Thomsen
from the Environmental Centre Odense for taking the time to discuss study site
characteristics with us, visiting Odense River and fjord with us, providing data and
information on the water quality in Odense River Basin and in particular Odense River, as
well as from valuable comments on the web-survey and the water quality description, the
illustrations and the maps.
We will also acknowledge Jacob Ladenburg (AKF) for valuable discussions on the choice
experiment part of the study, and for commenting this case study report, and Bernd
Münier who helped us with the GIS work.
We have benefitted from the funding of this project from both EU FP6 and from the
Danish Directorate for Foods.
Thanks to all the members of the team working on the common survey design for water
quality within AQUAMONEY. A special thank to Roy Brouwer (IVM) and Ian Bateman
(UEA) for inspiration and coordination.
5
1. Introduction
The main objective of the case study in the Odense River Basin (ORB) is to value the
benefits of obtaining Water Framework Directive objectives and to test guidelines for
valuation according to the WFD objectives. We have delimited the study to focus on
Odense River being the main river in the Odense River Basin. The case study is part of a
larger Danish study with the objective to value WFD effects in the whole ORB as well as
in different main water bodies within the River Basin – i.e. the main river (Odense River),
the ten largest lakes and the fjord (Odense fjord).
The reasons for valuing the benefits of the proposed changes in surface water quality in
the ORB are to:
1) assess the overall benefits of WFD changes in this river basin and compare them to the
costs for obtaining the necessary changes. Hereby cost-benefit assessments will be made.
2) contribute to the basis for deciding on whether exemptions from the WFD- objectives
can be built on cost-benefit/NPV-assessments.
We focus on improvements in the environmental quality of the surface water, and the
description of the current quality as well as the WFD objectives are built on data and
descriptions from the Environmental Centre in Funen, who are responsible for the WFD
implementation in this river basin.
The present quality of most of the water bodies in the River Basin is of poor to moderate
quality, and improvements to good and very good conditions are valued. At the time
when the survey design was decided and implemented the WFD objectives were not yet
decided as it took longer than expected to reach an agreement on the objectives of the
intercalibration process among the EU countries.
2. Description of the case study
2.1. Location of the case study area, including sampling area
The Odense River Basin is – together with 13 other European catchments – a pilot area
and test study for implementation of the WFD. As part of this test study, water bodies
(surface water, wetlands, and groundwater) have been characterised and the pollutant
loading of groundwater and surface water assessed including the impact of human
activities on water status.
Odense River basin (ORB) is located on the Island of Funen, the second largest Danish
Island.
6
Figure 1. The Odense River basin
La ke Bryrup
Od e nse Fio rd
Odense city
Odense River
Map 1. The ORB
7
The catchment area which constitutes ORB comprises an area of 1.046 km2. The area is
predominantly rural but contains one major city – Odense - with a population amounting
to 180,000 citizens. In comparison the substantial rural area at Funen and the closest
small islands are inhabited by approximately 64,000 people; in total the area of Funen is
inhabited by 242,000 citizens.
2.2. The sampling
As we expect that the beneficiaries of improvements of Odense River are located both
inside and outside the river basin, we sampled across the whole island of Funen in the
pilot survey. This sampling did not result in a significantly declining WTP with distance,
however, and it was decided to sample in a larger area for the main survey to assess the
potential distance decay. The sampling area for the main survey was the area of Funen
and the municipalities in the southern part of the South Danish region, being close to
Funen. Funen and these municipalities are divided by a bridge (the “Lillebæltsbro”, the
Little Belt bridge), but as apposed to the “Storebæltsbro” (the Great belt bridge) the
Lillebæltsbro is not tolled. Because the Storebæltsbro is a toll-bridge (price approx 75
Euro for each trip) we decided not to sample at the area on eastern side of Storebælt, i.e.
the island of Zealand. The sampling area for the pilot and for the main survey is shown on
map 2 and 3 below. The sampling is further described in section 3.
Figure 2. The sampling areas for the main and the pilot surveys
Map 2 Main Survey sampling
area
Map 3 Pilot survey sampling
area
8
The sampling area for the main survey encompasses the 19 municipalitie Assens,
Kerteminde, Odense, Nordfyn, Ærø, Billund, Tønder, Fredericia, Vejle, Vejen,
Middelfart, Faaborg-Midtfyn, Nyborg, Svendborg, Langeland, Haderslev, Sønderborg
Kolding and Hedensted.
The case study questionnaire was submitted on the internet by the GALLUP institute.
The GALLUP panel consists of 35,000 individuals all over Denmark, and GALLUP was
asked to sample in all minimum 700 respondents (households). In all the questionnaire
was submitted to 2001 persons, and the survey sampling was stopped at 754 responses,
resulting in a response rate of 37.68 pct. The relatively low response rate can be explained
by a need to send the questionnaire to a large number of households who did not respond
because of summer holiday.
2.3 Water system characteristics
The aquatic environment within the whole ORB comprises a significant number of
aquifers and surface water bodies in the categories of watercourses and lakes, as well as
the fjord: ORB includes approx. 1100 km of open watercourse and 2 600 lakes and ponds
(>100 m2). Only 21 lakes occupy an area of more than 3 ha each (County of Funen
2005a). These water bodies are subject to varying pressures to their environmental state.
The pressures have been identified and when possible quantified in connection with the
WFD prescribed article 5 analyses.
The status and risk of not fulfilling the requirements of good ecological status in 2015 are
summarised in table
Table 1. Characterisation of the water bodies in the Odense River basin
Water body
Water at risk
Reason for not fulfilling objectives,
main pressures
Rivers (incl Odense River)
96%
Physical regulation of river and river
valley due to agricultural demand for
land
Waste water outlets, storm water
Lakes
86% (75 high risk, 15 at risk
because of lack of data)
Nutrient losses from agriculture,
europhication
Coastal waters, Odense fjord
100%
Nutrient losses from agriculture,
eutrophication. Hazardous substances.
Groundwater
50%
Nitrate load, hazardous substances.
High abstraction level.
Source: Modified after Odense Environmental centre, Harley Madsen
9
The wetlands and watercourses have undergone major physical changes and many of
them have disappeared in recent decades. Restoration of these areas is one of the
measures to obtain good quality of the water-bodies in the basin. The watercourses of the
ORB constitute major pollution pathways from the source of pollution to the fjord, and
further to the sea. Apart from serving as transporters of pollution watercourses also serve
as habitats for flora and fauna, as well as human use. The relatively low retention period
of water in a given stretch of the watercourses makes them less vulnerable to pollution
with phosphorous- and nitrate pollution than other water bodies, and the environmental
derogation of watercourses originating from changes to the physical and hydrological
attributes of the watercourse is more significant. Based on the division in fauna classes
currently applied to watercourses as a measure of environmental quality and the
interpretation of what ecologically good status is equal to in this index, the watercourses
within the ORB have been investigated and their environmental status determined. The
ORB contains approximately 931 km natural watercourses divided in three types where
type 1 is the smallest and type 3 the largest. Odense River is approximately 60 km long,
belonging to class 3 and the largest river in the river basin. Odense River is classified as
poor to moderate quality; most of the river is in a moderate state. The state can be seen
from figure 3 below, where the blue colour indicate very good status, the green colour
good status, the yellow moderate and the red poor status. As can be seen the river does
not fulfil the WFD requirements of good ecological status.
Figure 3. The current quality of Odense River (Source: Odense env. centre, map made by Gregor
Levin, NERI).
The environmental state of the lakes within the ORB is in general below the requirements
of good ecological status stated in the WFD; and the quality of most of the lakes is poor.
NERI estimates that nitrate concentration can not be in excess of 1 mg/L if a lake is to
hold good ecological status (Søndergård et al. 2003). Furthermore phosphorous content of
a lake should not exceed 0.05 mg/L in shallow lakes and 0.025 mg/L in deep lakes if
10
good ecological state is to persevere. Due to extensive diffuse nitrate and phosphorus
pollution mainly originating from agriculture and point source pollution originating from
sewage, most lakes experience a nitrate and phosphorous content significantly larger than
what is specified as a requirement to uphold good ecological status. Although sewage is
less responsible for the pollution than was the case before the first action plans were
contemplated it is still a significant source of pollution as rural waste treatment has not
been updated at the same speed as seen in urban areas. Phosphorous pollution influence
the ecological state of a lake much more than is the case for most other water body types
due to the long retention periods of water present in lakes (County of Funen 2005a).
Odense fjord is by far the largest surface water body in the river basin and may be
categorised within the ORB as a terminal recipient of nearly all waterborne pollution
which have not been remedied artificially or naturally. The fjord is subject to a substantial
load of a multitude of polluting substances originating from both agricultural lands in the
entire river basin as well as several major industries including Shipping and Shipyard
activities as well as waste dumps and other minor activities. Odense fjord occupies an
area of 6500 ha, divided in an inner and outer part with diverse physical attributes. Both
sections of the fjord are in general shallow but the innermost part is especially so with an
average registered depth of only 0.8 meters (County of Funen 2005d). The fjord
resembles a large estuary of the Odense River more than a typical Danish fjord. The
retention period of water is thus rather short (17 days) and the fjord holds some unique
physical qualities which supports a large range of species. Thus, the fjord constitutes an
important habitat for birds and is as such subject to extensive environmental legislation
independent of the WFD. Despite prior environmental legislation recent investigations in
relation to the article 5 analyses have shown that the ecological status is significantly
below good for the fjord. Most of the fjord is of poor ecological quality.
2.4 Short characterization of water use and water users
Households
Households consume drinking water from groundwater in the area, discharge wastewater
and use the water bodies in the basin for a number of recreational purposes. From a value
point of view, it is possible to determine household sector expenses for drinking water
and for wastewater disposal and treatment.
The expenses for consumption of drinking water are calculated on the basis of a
distribution of the total production costs in relation to the household sector’s share of the
consumption. The expenses for drinking water also include a charge to cover groundwater
mapping by the Counties. The household sector’s contribution to this mapping is
expected to amount to approx. DKK 2 million. Expenses have not been calculated for
actual pollution-limiting measures to protect the groundwater, measures that are part of
the current planning of the future groundwater protection initiatives.
With respect to wastewater, there are no immediately available calculations of the amount
discharged apportioned by consumer groups. This expense is therefore estimated as
households pay for disposal of the same amount of wastewater as their water
11
consumption. The expenses for wastewater include part of the wastewater levy, which is
determined by actual discharges of BOD5, N and P.
Based on the combined national proceeds and the proportion of the population inhabiting
the basin, the levy can be estimated at just over DKK 10 million. Of this the households
pay just under half. Household expenses for wastewater disposal comprise almost two
thirds of the expenses for the actual services to this tax on water consumption of DKK
5/m3 which, together with VAT, comprises one third of the total costs. If the calculated
costs per m3 are compared with water fees it should be noted, for example, that the meter
charge helps cover the costs, and that the variable part of the fee for drinking water will
be less than that stated in the table. The cost of one m3 of water is typically DKK 4—6.
On average households pay 4,000 DKK per year for water consumption and wastewater
disposal.
Industry/services
Like the households, industry/services use drinking water and dispose wastewater. A
small number of enterprises in the basin have their own water supply, and a couple of
them have their own wastewater outfall. To this should be added Fynsværket Combined
Heat and Power plant, which uses large amounts of fjord water as cooling water. This
heated water is subsequently led out into the lower reach of the River Odense.
In addition to the above-mentioned expenses, a minor fee for the protection of
groundwater against soil contamination is included. In this respect, a rough estimate has
been made of the expenses for remediating contaminated sites that are paid by members
of the public. This cost has been ascribed to industry/services, even though a minor share
might be defrayed by households.
These expenses are placed in relation to the industry/services production value. This
measure is an attempt to determine the proportion of the sectors’ total production costs
comprised by water and wastewater services, and hence how important water use is as a
production factor. It should be noted that industry’s expenses for complying with various
discharge criteria are not included. Such expenses are not calculated in Denmark as they
are often process-integrated, and it is thus quite random how much is ascribed to
environmental requirements and what is an operation-related improvement in production.
The relative expenses for industry alone are somewhat higher since water and wastewater
together account for approx. 0.6% of the production value, as compared with 0.1% for the
service sectors alone.
Agriculture and market gardens
Agriculture is a central sector in the analysis of the existing water use in that it accounts
for the greatest proportion of nutrient loading of surface waters and groundwater in the
basin. The environmental pressure is an unintentional side effect of the intensive
production. The calculations of agricultural expenses associated with water use include an
estimate of the annual expenses associated with pollution-limiting activities. First and
12
foremost, these encompass expenses associated with the implementation of the
nationwide Action Plan on the Aquatic Environment II.
Agriculture uses water as a necessary input to both livestock and crop production. The
sector primarily uses water abstracted from the public waterworks in livestock
production. Field irrigation is primarily based on individual abstraction wells, and
accounts for approx. 50 percent of combined water consumption by agriculture and
market gardens in Odense River Basin.
In addition, drainage measures have been or are being carried out in the form of the
drying- out of wetlands, watercourse regulation, drainage and watercourse maintenance in
order to optimize agricultural production and maximize the size of the area suitable for
cultivation. At the same time, these measures enhance pressure on the environment due to
a reduction in the maturation capacity of the soil. Expenses for these drainage measures
are paid for by agriculture with respect to wetland drainage (pump and dyke
associations), and by the Counties and Municipalities with respect to watercourse
maintenance.
Expenses associated with wastewater are estimated on the basis of just under 2 000 farms
in the basin. The latter are assumed to be connected to an emptying scheme for sewage
sludge from the individual mechanical treatment facilities, while at the same time paying
the wastewater levy of DKK 3.8 per m3. These expenses each correspond to approx.
DKK 1 million per year. The expenses for the pesticide tax have been calculated from the
proportion of arable land in Odense River Basin relative to that in Funen County as a
whole and the total tax proceeds.
Agriculture’s own expenses for their agri-environmental measures account for just below
15 percent of the sector’s total expenses immediately related to water use in Odense River
Basin. Expenses for environment-related green taxes (tax on pesticides) account for 21
percent of the total expenses. Relatively, the expenses for water use comprise a higher
proportion of agricultural market garden production value than is the case with
industry/services. The percentage is still relatively small, though.
The consumptive non market use values related to the water bodies in the river basin,
which is in focus for the valuation within this case study, comprise recreation, both
bathing waters and fishing waters. The following maps and tables indicate the localisation
of these sites.
Recreational fisheries: The map shows localities suitable for recreational fisheries at the
island of Funen. Apparently both the coast and the Odense River have good locations for
anglers.
13
Figure 4. Map of suitable fishing locations (www.visitdenmark.dk)
Bathing resorts/beaches (58 results). The map in figure 5 indicates the bathing resorts at
the island of Funen, these are apparently located mainly at the coast.
Figure 5. Map of bathing locations (www.visitdenmark.dk)
In summary, little is known about the value of the non-marketed water uses in the ORB as
there is no prior valuation studies carried out in this area. There is therefore no
knowledge of whether the costs are disproportionate to the benefits of the WFD
improvements.
14
3. Set up of the survey
There are in all 5 splits in the Odense River Basin study, where two splits are used as
basis for this case study report.
The split sample approach was chosen to enable
1) assessments of different water bodies within the river basin: the Odense River, the ten
largest lakes in the river basin, and Odense Fjord
2) the whole river basin.
In these split samples maps were used to show differences in water quality, later sections
describes this. In addition to the “map” split samples a choice experiment split was added
using a more traditional/conventional study design than employed in the common
valuation design. Emphasis was paid to the presentation of quality changes and scenarios
using maps in the common valuation design. The traditional split sample used verbal
descriptions and a choice table describing alternative choices and the attributes and their
levels. This split used a contingent valuation question identical to the map-split continent
valuation question.
Each of the 5 splits embraced 350 answers as a minimum. As mentioned before we use
the river split (including the river-traditional split) for this case study report. The
traditional river and the mapped river splits are only differing when it comes to the design
of the choice experiments, as the river split use maps for these and is compatible to the
designs used for the CE in UK and Norway. The traditional CE is more compatible to the
CE design used in Belgium and Holland.
We have focused on the valuation of Odense River as this enables comparisons of the
results to the other river case studies in AQUAMONEY.
The questionnaire was composed of questions that were common to all the water quality
case studies in the AQUAMONEY project, and some questions specific to the Danish
case study. The specific Danish questions were all asked after the valuation questions to
avoid bias comparing results with the other AQUAMONEY studies, and in the benefit
transfer. As in many of the other case studies the questionnaires in the Danish study
composed both CV and CE questions. The CV questions were asked before the CE
questions.
Furthermore, the Danish case study was conducted as a web based survey using the
internet panel of the professional survey institute GALLUP 12. The questionnaire was
carefully tested by focus groups, individual interviews and a pilot test.
1
There is a well-known discussion in the literature about different data collection methods. It is
not possible to come to a general conclusion about what data collection method is the best one as
they have there own pros and cons.
15
The hypotheses we want to test by the study, within each of the splits are:
Distance decay: WTP is distance dependent, but the hypotheses is that distance
dependency /decay of WTP is significant for users, but not for non-users.
Use and non-use values: WTP is significantly higher for users than non-users. For
recreational users WTP are significantly higher for users than non-users. Users of Odense
River have a significantly higher WTP from improvements of Odense River than users of
other rivers
Sensitivity to scope: WTP is significantly higher for an improvement from yellow to blue
than from yellow to green. WTP for an improvement of the whole river is higher than for
a shorter stretch, but WTP is decreasing for an improvement at the margin.
The WTP for imprivements close to Odense city is higher than the WTP for
improvements of the other stretches.
Policy relevance: We will estimate cost of actions to improve river quality, as well as the
quality of the other water bodies. The results should be used in a CBA to assess the net
benefits of actions upstream versus downstream. This is the policy relevance of dividing
into sub-water bodies like the stretches.
3.1. Questionnaire design (common)
As mentioned above the Odense River survey was conducted in July and August 2008,
and was sent out to in all 2100 households. A total of 754 responses were collected using
two different survey versions. Both versions of the surveys were sent to people living
within a radius of maximum 100 km from Odense River. GALLUP secured a
geographically proportional sampling for both splits inside the radius.
In both survey versions (splits) a water quality ladder is used to explain the different
water quality options and the effects of water quality on the conditions for fish and plants,
on the visibility of the water and on the recommended use of the water. As apparent from
figure 6 each of the quality levels are linked to a colour.
Being part of the “Common valuation design” in the water quality group in
AQUAMONEY the questionnaire comprised
a) Introduction and background questions,
2
The panel consists of approx. 35000 individuals all over Denmark and the panel is
representative for the Danish population. The panelists have been contacted by GALLUP and the
panel is thus not self-recorded, hereby decreasing the risk of self-selection bias.
16
b) CV questions; for short and long improvement
c) Follow up question to CV questions
d) Introduction to CE
e) CE questions
f) Follow up questions to CE
g) Socio economic questions
A number of socio-economic characteristics of the respondent panel pre-recruited by
TNS-Gallup was known prior to the survey. They were left out of the questionnaire, but
are included in the common-design dataset. Therefore it is also possible to get this kind of
information for the non-respondents.
The present quality of Odense River is as mentioned classified as moderate in the current
situation, i.e. the water quality is rather highly affected by human activity. This baseline
is presented to the respondents before the contingent valuation questions. All survey split
versions the CV questions are asked before the CE questions. The respondents are asked
whether this quality description conforms with their own perception of the quality of the
water, cf. figure 6.
The water quality of Odense River, both the present quality and the quality presented in
the scenarios (choice sets) are described for the respondents using a water quality ladder
encompassing pictures, symbols and text, common for the water quality group studies in
AQUAMONEY. The pictures, symbols, and text describe and illustrate the visibility of
the water in four states of quality, conditions for fish and plants, the potential for using
the river for fishing (coarse and game fishing), for bathing, boating and bird watching.
The four quality classes are indicated by colours, where blue is the very good condition,
and red the bad conditions. Green indicates good conditions, while yellow indicates
moderate (status quo). The water quality in the status quo situation is described using
data from the Environmental Centre in Odense, as this centre is the responsible authority
for monitoring Odense River and associated waters.
The full questionnaire can be seen in appendix A, and the different parts are explained
below after the description of the pilot survey.
The pilot study
The pilot was submitted in December 2007 (N = 350). 10 respondents from the pilot test
were subsequently interviewed individually about their understanding of the scenarios,
resulting in a slight simplification of the information provided and the choice sets. The
final design of the questionnaire was decided using the experiences from the tests,
summarised below.
The pilot test study comprised the above mentioned types of questions. Besides the
Contingent Valuation questions and the Choice Experiment choice sets the questionnaire
consisted of questions that should deduce the respondents’ attitude towards the nature and
17
water bodies on Funen, use and non-use of Odense River, distance to Odense River and
certainty of their reply to in all 12 choice sets. The questionnaire was sent to people living
on Funen by GALLUP. These people were part of GALLUP’s panel group. GALLUP
claimed that this group was representative of the population of Funen in regard to gender,
age, education level and geography.
359 people participated in the pilot study of which 344 answers was usable. It turned out
that the 344 respondents were not representatively distributed according to the socioeconomic variables gender, age, education level, household income and household size
according to the population of Funen. The respondents was scattered all over Funen with
the main emphasis in the greater towns and with a relatively short distance to Odense
River.
In the pilot study the 60 km of Odense River was divided into 11 stretches according to
the stretches for the environmental centre monitoring of the water quality of the river.
Only one of the stretches has a good ecological status. The rest of the river has a
moderate to poor ecological status. The conclusion on this design issue was that this
division into stretches was too detailed and too cognitively demanding for the
respondents, and it was decided to reduce the number of stretches from 11 to 3.
Further it appeared from the pilot that there was a sort of selection bias in the survey both
in the panel group and in the sample. This resulted from the fact that both the panel group
and the sample were not representatively distributed on the socio-economic variables. In
the main survey it was therefore decided not to mention that the survey theme was water
quality to avoid self selection bias from respondents being more interested in (aquatic)
environment than the average. Moreover in analysing the descriptive part of the
questionnaire it was clear that the respondents acted rational in the 12 choice sets,
because they had the price level in their considerations when they selected their preferred
alternative. There were 241 users and 103 non-users of Odense River in the sample. The
average WTP per household per year was 2,020 DKK for implementing the WFD (good
quality), corresponding to a total yearly willingness to pay of 432 mio. DKK aggregating
over the population of Funen. The average WTP per household per year was 2,116 DKK
for implementing a mix of good and very good quality as required by the local
environmental targets.
Furthermore the analysis found that the users on average had a higher value of
implementing the WFD in Odense River irrespective of how it is carried through than the
non-users. In regard to the socio-economic variables it turned out that women in general
had a higher yearly WTP per household for the two scenarios than men. It appeared that
the yearly WTP per household for the two scenarios did not increase with income. As
regards the distance to Odense River it looks like there is some distance decay effects for
people living within a distance of 20 km to Odense River, i.e. a decreasing WTP with
distance up to 20 km from the river. The respondents living more than 20 km from the
river have however a higher yearly WTP per household. These results motivated the
choice of a larger sample region than the region used for the pilot.
18
The pilot study is fully documented in Heriette Engel Hansens master thesis, unpublished.
The main study – introduction to water qualities
As mentioned a water quality ladder was used for the illustration, description and
information of the different water qualities the river can attain. The ladder contains both
pictures pictograms and text to ensure that information is provided whatever method one
prefers.
From focus groups it was acknowledged that different people use these different types of
information, and that it was appreciated that we presented the different types. Before the
ladder was shown, the respondents were informed about what type of information they
would get, and after the ladder and before the valuation questions they were informed
about budget constraints. No cheap talk was added because it was decided to leave the
cheap talk out in the common AQUAMONEY design.
19
Highest quality
This picture indicates a river in its highest quality. The water is
suitable for boating, angling and swimming. The water is suitable
for fish, plant and bird species being present under natural river
conditions.
This picture indicates a river where the water is suitble for boating,
swimming and angling, even though the most pollution sensitive
fish can be absent under these conditions. The diversity of birds
and plants is somewhat lower than compared to the highest water
quality.
This picture indicates a river where the water is suitable for
boating, but the possibilities for swimming and angling are more
limited. Pollution sensitive fish species are present as they are
artificially planted out. The presence of fish, birds and plant
species are limited.
This picture indicates a river where the water is not suitble for
boating, swimming and angling. The presence of bird and plants
are very limited, and there is few or no fish.
Lowest quality
Figure 6. The water quality ladder. The pictures and pictograms are protected by copyright, Hime
& Bateman 2009. The generic water quality ladder can be seen in appendix C in this report.
Hime & Bateman (2009) has carefully ensured that the vegetation and fish species
presented in the drawings of each of the water quality classes are in accordance with the
classification system used for the WFD in England. At the time of our survey design the
intercalibration of the objectives and quality indicators between the EU countries was not
yet ended and concluded in EU. We therefore compared the specied composition of both
fish and vegetation with Danish data for the reference condtions, and found that even
though there can be differences in species composition, Baattrup-Pedersen et al (2008)
conclude that the reference conditions and quality classess in lowland rivers and streams
in UK, Germany, Denmark and the Baltic countries conform rather well. Of course,
Danish rivers can look different than an English river like the one pictured, but this was
not mentioned as a problem of reliablity in the focus groups and personal interviews. The
icons and text used was adjusted to the conditions in Odense River, because trout fishery
is pretty good in this river even though the water quality is classified as moderate.
20
The respondents were informed that the blue quality is the highest quality while the red is
the lowest. Wordings like best and poorest is avoided not to influence the choices of
alternatives due to moral obligations – we don’t expect that any will choose poor quality,
and that it is easier to relate objectively to a ladder between high and low.
The symbols showed below each of the pictures are also explained in the text provided to
the respondents. They are further informed that they are able to see the link to the water
quality ladder whenever they want – they can easily click on a link and then the document
will be presented for them on the screen.
The Contingent valuation
We use a payment card for the contingent WTP question. The question is:
“In the table below we will ask you to value the maximum amount your household is
willing to pay as a yearly extra payment to the water bill for the change of the water
quality in Odense River/short stretch of Odense River. We ask you to consider your
answer carefully, and remember your household has to pay this amount every year.”
The payment card is shown below.
The payment card
 560 kr
0 kr
20 kr  600 kr
40 kr  640 kr
80 kr  680 kr
110 kr  710 kr
150 kr  750 kr
190 kr  790 kr
220 kr  820 kr
260 kr  860 kr
300 kr  900 kr
340 kr  940 kr
380 kr  970 kr
410 kr  1010 kr
450 kr  1050 kr
490 kr  1090 kr
520 kr  1130 kr
















1200 kr
1280 kr
1350 kr
1430 kr
1500 kr
1690 kr
1880 kr
2060 kr
2250 kr
2440 kr
2630 kr
3000 kr
3380 kr
3750 kr
4130 kr
4500 kr
















4880 kr
5250 kr
5630 kr
6000 kr
6380 kr
6750 kr
7130 kr
7500 kr
7880 kr
8250 kr
8630 kr
9000 kr
>9000 kr













Andet, notér:
Ved ikke

These payment levels are used in all of the water quality surveys in AQUAMONEY, and
the card is therefore relatively long, ranging from 0 to above 9000 kroner.
If the answer was “0” the respondents are asked. “Why did you answer “0 Kroner” in the
previous question? State the most and second most important reason.” The respondents
are given 15 different options: “The increase of the water bill is too high compared with
the described improvement of the water quality”, “Odense River/The improved stretch of
21
Odense River is too far from my residency”, “I don’t use Odense River/this stretch of
Odense River”, “The current condition in Odense River/the stretch is good enough”, “I
don’t believe the water quality can be improved as described”, “I would rather pay for the
improvement of another river/stretch of Odense River”, “ I would rather use my money
on other things”, “I can not afford to pay a higher water bill than I already pay”, “The
people who use Odense River should pay for the improvement”, “The waterworks should
pay for the improvement”, “The state should pay for this”, “The water bill is already to
high”, “The question was hard to answer” or “Other”. These questions help identifying
protest zero bidders.
To test scope sensitivity there are two different scales of improvements of the river. The
whole river is improved, as well as a shorter stretch of the river. The whole river is
approx 60 km long, while the short stretch is 15 km long. The short stretch is located just
outside Odense city.
In the maps below the two different improvements are shown.
Figure 7 CV-maps
There are as mentioned two splits for the river. In one split the largest improvement, i.e.
of the whole river, is presented first, and after that the short one. In between the
respondents are asked to indicate their maximum willingness to pay on a payment card. In
the other spilt, the respondents are similarly asked to value the shortest stretch first.
The Choice Experiments
The two splits (i.e. the splits receiving the short stretch and the long stretch first,
respectively) mentioned above are also dissimilar as regards in the CE part, as one split
22
receives a map version of the choice tasks, and the other part of the survey receives a
more traditional version.
In both CE-splits the choice sets were created using a simultaneous design in the sense
that the design was selected from the collective factorial (Louviere 1988). From the full
collective factorial, we used the D-optimal linear design routine in SAS (Kuhfeld 2001)
to select 40 choice sets. Each choice set contained three alternatives, inclusive one opt-out
alternative which was included in all of the choice sets. The design was finally blocked
into four versions, each containing ten choice sets.
The attributes in the two survey-versions.
In survey version 1 (N= 382 responses) (figure 8), each alternative is described using a
map of the river. The river is divided into three different geographical stretches forming
the attributes in the CE. Each of the stretches has a length between 15 and 20 km. The
quality of each of these stretches is indicated by a colour on the presented maps, referring
to the water quality ladder. The water quality levels represent the attribute levels that can
take 3 levels: yellow, green and blue, referring to the water qualities moderate, good and
very good, respectively. Poorer qualities are not included. The red quality – which is a
poorer quality than the status quo situation (yellow) - is shown in the water quality ladder
but is not included in the CE as the scenarios will not lead to decreasing quality.
Figure 8. Example of a choice set from survey version 1
In survey version 2 (N= 372 responses) (figure 9), the water quality for the entire river
was indicated by the colours blue, green or yellow, also referring to the water quality
ladder. In addition, attributes describing the possibility to fish, the possibility to access
the river by tracks, the status of the area surrounding the river (if this area is cultivated
agricultural land or non-cultivated land i.e. wetlands, meadows etc) were included.
23
Theme
Present conditions
Water quality
Alternative 1
Yellow
Alternative 2
Green
Blue
Angling
Good
Improved
Improved
Access
Restricted
Good
Good
Primary cultivated
Primary uncultivated
Primary uncultivated
Annual payment
0 DKK
650 DKK
1275 DKK
I prefer:
(tick x in one of
the boxes)
Surrounding
areas
Figure 9. Example of a choice set from survey version 2:
In both versions, each alternative (apart from the status quo/opt-out alternative) is
connected to a payment, which is a fixed increase in the annual water bill per household.
The payment can take 6 levels, and the level in the status quo is zero.
This means that in survey version 1 we have three non-monetary attributes with three
levels and one monetary attribute with six levels. In survey version 2 we use one attribute
with three levels, three attributes with two levels and the monetary attribute with six
levels. An example of a choice set for the two survey versions used in the questionnaire is
given in the following page.
As mentioned the reason behind the use of two different survey versions is to enable
comparison of the credibility of the study using visual information and maps in survey 1
(figure 8) with a more traditional choice set formulation in schemes in survey 2 (see
figure 9). While the map survey version provides information on the trade-offs between
water quality improvements in different geographical stretches of the river, the traditional
survey version do not provide this information, but yields information on the trade-offs
between the water quality improvement and two additional attributes representing the
access to the river bank and the landscape surrounding the river (whether it is cultivated
or not).
4. Valuation results
4.1. Non-respondent characteristics
The first question in the questionnaire was if the respondent wanted to participate, if no,
they were provided 6 different reasons for why. Including “I don’t have the time but can
be contacted later”, “I don’t have the time”, “No interest in participating in a research
project”, “25-30 minutes response time is too long”, “I don’t want to participate when I
don’t know what the survey is about” or “Other”.
436 of the 2100 households answered “no” to the first question, the rest (910) didn’t
respond at all.
24
Table 2 Reasons not to participate
Why don't you want to participate?
Freq.
Percent
I don't have time in the stated period but can be contacted later
64
14.85
I don't have the time
87
20.19
I'm not interested in participating in a research project
27
6.26
25-30 minutes is too long time
177
41.07
I don't want to participate when I don't know what the survey is about
20
4.64
Other
56
12.99
Total
431
100
In table 2 the reasons not to participate is presented. Only 5 percent of the nonrespondents answered that the reason for non-participation was that they did not want to
participate when they did not know what the survey is about. This is encouraging because
we tried to reduce self selection bias by not telling about the theme before respondents
accepted to attend, but we were anxious that omitting information about the theme could
lead to non-responses. We conclude that this was not the case.
Most of the rejects are due to the fact that the questionnaire will take 25-30 minutes, 41
percent finds that too long. This is of course a drawback of the internet sampling method
as we expect a larger acceptance of more time consuming face-to-face interviews beyond
20 minutes. 20 percent of the non-respondents state that they simply do not have the time,
while almost 15 percent doesn’t have the time right now but can be contacted later.
Only 6 percent answer that they will not participate in a research project.
Additionally they were asked if they wanted to state their zip-code, it is then possible to
see which municipality the non-respondents belong to. 402 stated a zip-code, but 2 of the
stated zip-codes were outside the research area and a third was a non existing zip-code
therefore only 399 non-respondents are presented in table 3.
Table 3. Non-respondents zip-code
Municipality
Middelfart
Assens
Faaborg-Midtfyn
Kerteminde
Nyborg
Odense
Svendborg
Nordfyns
Langeland
Ærø
Haderslev
Sønderborg
Tønder
Vejen
Kolding
Vejle
Hedensted
Freq. Percent
13
3.26
8
2.01
19
4.76
1
0.25
14
3.51
76
19.05
24
6.02
25
6.27
5
1.25
2
0.50
4
1.00
9
2.26
2
0.50
20
5.01
81
20.30
60
15.04
36
9.02
25
Approximately 60 percent of the non-respondents are from outside Funen, and 40 percent
from the island of Funen. The non-respondents are mainly from the towns Kolding,
Odense and Vejle, properly not because people here are indifferent to the water quality
but because this is the three largest municipalities in the area measured on the number of
households.
A number of socio-economic characteristics of the respondent panel pre-recruited by
TNS-Gallup was known prior to the survey. They were left out of the questionnaire, but
are included in the common-design dataset. Therefore it is also possible to get this kind of
information for the non-respondents.
In total 436 respondents refused to do the questionnaire, the mean age for the refusals is
44 year (50 in the sample used for the main analysis) and 52 percent of them are males
(56 in the sample used for the main analysis).
In figure 10 the household income distribution for the non-respondents is presented. As in
the main sample the high income households are overrepresented and the low income
households are underrepresented. Only households in the income interval 200-299.000
DKK differ, here they are underrepresented – in the main sample they were equal to the
information from Statistics Denmark (DST).
Percent
70.0
Non-respondents
Southern Denmark (DST)
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
until 99.999 Dkk
100.000-199.999 200.000-299.999 300.000-399.999 400.000 Dkk and
Dkk
Dkk
Dkk
above
Income
Figure 10. Non-respondents household income
4.2. Respondent characteristics and sample representativeness
754 respondents completed the questionnaire regarding the valuation of Odense River. In
this section the respondents’ characteristics will be described.
26
Table 4. The geographical sampling
Municipality
Middelfart
Assens
Faaborg-Midtfyn
Kerteminde
Nyborg
Odense
Svendborg
Nordfyns
Langeland
Ærø
Haderslev
Sønderborg
Tønder
Vejen
Kolding
Vejle
Hedensted
Total
Freq.
25
23
38
12
36
188
57
47
13
9
28
1
6
14
97
68
52
714
Percent
3.5
3.22
5.32
1.68
5.04
26.33
7.98
6.58
1.82
1.26
3.92
0.14
0.84
1.96
13.59
9.52
7.28
100
From the map beside table 4 it is seen that the respondents are concentrated in the urban
areas, and there by reflect population distribution.
4.1.1. Demographic characteristics
100%
90%
80%
44.30%
50.68%
70%
Male
60%
Female
50%
40%
30%
55.70%
49.32%
20%
10%
0%
Sample
Southern Denmark (DST)
Figure 11 Gender distribution
There is a majority of respondents in the sample (Figure 11). Compared to the gender
distribution in Southern Denmark according to Statistics DST it is clear that there is a
strong overrepresentation of males in the sample.
Nearly 30 percent of the respondents in the sample are between 60 and 69 years old. This
is a clear overrepresentation which is also seen in Figure 12 where age distribution in the
27
sample and in Southern Denmark is compared. Also the age group 50-59 is
overrepresented while the rest of the age groups are underrepresented. The average age in
the sample is 50 years while the average age in Southern Denmark is 49 years.
35%
Sample
Southern Denmark (DST)
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
18-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90- Age
Figure 12. Age distribution
People with basic education are strongly underrepresented in the sample. Only 15 percent
of the respondents have a basic education while 35 percent of the population in Southern
Denmark have a basic education. Also people with short and medium cycle higher
education are underrepresented while people with a general upper secondary, vocational
and long cycle higher education are overrepresented in the sample. Everybody in the
sample has stated their education.
50%
Sample
Southern Denmark (DST)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Basic school
General upper
secondary school
Vocational
education
Short-and
Long cycle higher
medium cycle
education
higher education
Unknown
Figure 13. Educational distribution
28
4.1.2. Socio-economic characteristics
People with high household income are overrepresented in the sample, while people with
low income are underrepresented. The average household income in the sample is DKK
435,477 while it is DKK 426,796 in all of Southern Denmark according to the Statistics.
60%
Sample
Southern Denmark (DST)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
until 99.999 Dkk
100.000-199.999
Dkk
200.000-299.999
Dkk
300.000-399.999
Dkk
400.000 Dkk and
above
Figure 14. Income distribution
4.1.3. Water use characteristics
On average the respondents make a trip to a river 32 times a year (one trip for eleven
days), and 92 trips to a lake (almost twice a week).
number
160
River trips
140
Lake trips
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
< 1 yearly
1 yearly
2 yearly
4 yearly
1 monthly 2 monthly 1 w eekly
2 w eekly >2 w eekly Every day
Figure 15 How often do you visit the river or lake?
29
Trips along the shore
Experiencing nature, w atching birds and animals
Walk the dog
Frequently
Fishing for salmon og trout
Sometimes
Bathing, sw iming..
Rarely
Never
Fishing for other fish than salmon and trout
Don't Know
Sailing (non-motorised)
Motorised sailing
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure16. When you visit a river or water stream, how often do you do the activities described
below?
Figure 16 shows the distribution of what the respondents do when they visit a river or
water stream and how often they do the activity in question. Over 50 percent of the
respondents walk along the shore or experience the nature frequently or sometimes when
they visit a river or water stream. Just over 20 percent walk their dog along the river
frequently or sometimes. The rest of the activities (fishing, bathing and sailing) are rarely
or never being practiced by nearly all the respondents.
4.2. Public perception of water management problems
The respondents are shown a map of the water quality in Odense River afterwards they
are asked if the water quality is consistent with their expectations. Figure 17 shows how
the respondents answered.
Consistent w ith expectation
Better condition than expected
Worse condition than expected
Don't know the w ater quality
Don't know
Figure 17. Is this description of the water quality in Odense River consistent with your
expectations?
30
One forth of the respondents finds that the water quality in Odense River is worse than
they expected. Just over one forth of the respondents finds that the water quality is
consistent with their expectations. Only 8 percent had expected that the water quality in
Odense River was better than it is.
4.3. Estimated economic values for water resource management
In table 5 the different mean WTP for the CVM are presented.
The mean WTP is estimated on the basis of predicted WTP for each respondent3.
Table 5. CVM Estimated mean WTP (in DKK.)
Estimated mean WTP
WTP for short improvement (all observations)
WTP for short improvement (without protest bids)
WTP for large improvement (all observations)
WTP for large improvement (without protest bids)
Obs
722
660
721
665
Mean
294.34
322.68
441.15
479.10
Std.
96.59
93.82
124.57
128.69
Min
89.48
109.14
178.12
188.78
Max
576.05
597.28
818.81
867.60
The mean WTP is estimated with and without protest bids for both the short and large
improvement. Estimates without protest bids are generally higher than with all
observations since a number of zero bids are taken out of the sample. The mean WTP for
the short improvement is between 294-323 DKK per household per year. Protest bidders
are identified in line with the other AQUAMONEY case studies4.
As seen from table 5 households willingness to pay is sensitive to the magnitude of the
improvement, i.e. whether the whole river is improved or only a minor part, and there is
scope sensitivity. However, the internal scope is much stronger than the external, which is
tested by introducing the short and the large improvement first in two split samples, and
subsequently asking about the long/short improvement. The respondents answering the
long improvement first and then the short have a significantly lower WTP for the smallest
improvement, while this difference is not significant for the other part of the sample
receiving the smallest improvement first.
In table 6 the implicit WTP results are presented for the Choice experiments.
As seen the CE resultsin survey version 2 indicate that the WTP for obtaining “good”
status is estimated to be 430 DKK (58 EURO) per household per year. Surprisingly there
is a lower estimated WTP for higher quality. To obtain “very good” quality of the water,
the mean WTP is estimated to be only 423 DKK (57 EURO) per household per year. The
difference between the two estimates is not statistically significant, but the result indicates
3
See also Cho et al.(2005) or Gunatilake(2007)
Protest bids are defined as in AQUAMONEY; if a zero bid is reasoned by “I don’t think water quality
will improve as described”, “People that use the river should pay for this”, “The water company should
pay for this”, “The government should pay for this” or “The question was too difficult to answer”.
4
31
that there is no scope sensitivity in the sense that the respondents are not willing to pay
for moving from “good” conditions to “very good” conditions.
Tabel 6. CE Marginal WTP (Standard error in parenthesis)
Survey version 1
Survey version 2
Area
Stretch 1
Stretch 1
Stretch 2
Stretch 2
Stretch 3
Stretch 3
Attribute
Level
/Water
Quality
Sample
Area
MWTP
Good
(green)
Very good
(blue)
Good
(green)
Very good
(blue)
Good
329
(51)
582
(61)
467
(49)
545
(53)
257
(green)
Very Good
(blue)
Opt-out
(54)
303
(51)
96
(45)
Whole River
Attribute
Level /Water
Quality
Whole River
Good
(green)
Very good
(blue)
Fish
Whole River
Access
Whole River
Cultivated
Land
Whole River5
Opt-out
Sample
MWTP
430
(44)
423
(56)
-116
(33)
138
(39)
74
(35)
-246
(34)
*** denotes one percent significance level, ** five percent and * ten percent
4.4. Factors explaining economic values for water resource management
The average respondent is a 50 year old male who knows and uses Odense River and has
lived at the current address for more than 5 years. He answered that he thought that the
conditions in the river were better than they actually are, he has not experienced any
water pollution in the summer 2008 and when he visits a river he walks along the shore
and experiences nature.
5
The use of CE has been argued to get around the well-known problem of embedding since tests of scope are essentially built in to
the CE (Hanley et al., 1998). However, although we don’t have a clean scope test, one could have expected less of a difference
between the sums of marginal WTP for the different stretches in sample 1 compared to same environmental improvements for the
whole river in survey version 2.
32
Table 7. Summary statistics of the variables, whole sample.
Variable
Bid for large improvement
Bid for short improvement
Distance to large improvement
Distance to short improvement
Distance coast
Household income(DKK)
Gender(1=male)
Age
Retired (=1)
Know the river (=1)
Know and use the river (=1)
Water quality consistent with expectation
Have experienced water pollution (=1)
Fishing licence (=1)
Finds the improvement possible (=1)
Residency > 5years (=1)
Activities by rivers or water streams
Walk the dog
Nature experience
Fishing
Fishing for salmon or trout
Fishing for other fish
Bathing or swimming
Sailing (motorised)
Sailing (non-motorised)
Walking along the shore
Obs.
Mean
754
754
754
754
754
754
754
754
754
754
754
754
754
749
754
754
380.61
253.98
30.40
30.57
5.29
434,349.70
1.44
49.97
0.19
0.97
0.78
2.88
0.38
0.01
0.60
0.67
710
709
754
709
709
708
707
710
709
0.24
0.56
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.12
0.02
0.04
0.69
Std. Dev.
Min
636.51
455.92
24.80
24.71
6.06
234,804.70
0.50
15.39
0.39
0.17
0.41
1.34
0.49
0.11
0.49
0.47
0.43
0.50
0.26
0.26
0.22
0.33
0.13
0.20
0.46
Max
0.00
6000.00
0.00
6000.00
0.06
96.27
0.09
101.25
0.02
28.95
0.00 1,000,000.00
1
2
18
82
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
5
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 8 and 9 present the results of tobit regressions for WTP for the short improvement
and for the improvement of the whole river. The regressions help to give an idea of which
household and individual characteristics explain the WTP in the contingent valuation
question. The regressions are run on the whole sample and on a sample without the
protest bids. We use the same methods as in Cho et al.(2005).
Most of the parameter signs in the regression are as expected. The further away from the
improvement in question, the less the household is willing to pay. The distance to the
substitute, here the coast, has a positive influence on the bid. The larger distance to the
substitute means that respondent values the river higher than the mean. Also if people
walk along the river they tend to value the water quality higher. If the respondent is asked
the short question first it has a positive effect on WTP for both the short and the large
improvement. And of course the WTP rises if the respondent finds the improvement
possible. Retired people tend to give a smaller bid, probably because they also have a
lower income.
The marginal change is the marginal effect on WTP caused by a change in the variable in
question.
33
Table 8. Tobit regression, WTP for the short improvement (CVM)
All observations
Marg.
Coef.
Change
(std.error)
Variable
Dist. to short improvement
-2.470 **
-1.543
(1.305)
Dist. to coast
6.535 *
4.082
(4.493)
Residency_dum(> 5 years)
-64.912
-40.548
(62.460)
Experience with waterpollution
17.745
11.084
(51.659)
Trips along the river
87.844 *
54.872
(56.241)
Short1 (dummy = 1 if asked short improvement first)
131.251 ****
81.987
(50.431)
Finds the improvement possible
253.455
158.322
(52.382)
Use the river
52.056
32.517
(63.483)
Household income
0.000
0.000
(0.000)
Retired
-115.801
-72.335
(86.741)
Gender
-69.348
-43.318
(52.080)
Age
0.412
0.258
(2.343)
Constant
0.858
0.536
(146.67)
sigma_e
623.905
(21.918)
N
722
****, ***, **, * indicates statistical significance at respectively 1, 5, 10, 15 % level
Without protest bids
Marg.
Coef.
Change
(std.error)
-2.242 **
-1.532
(1.301)
4.984
3.406
(4.463)
-80.264
-54.847
(62.281)
2.096
1.432
(51.426)
93.580 **
63.946
(56.208)
122.037 ***
83.392
(50.347)
203.246 ****
138.885
(52.629)
51.459
35.164
(63.490)
0.000
0.000
(0.000)
-123.691
-84.522
(87.324)
-106.036 ***
-72.458
(51.873)
1.408
0.962
(2.331)
131.419
89.803
(145.195)
604.754
(21.059)
660
34
Table 9. Tobit regression, WTP for the large improvement (CVM)
All observations
Without protest bids
Marg.
Coef.
Marg.
Coef.
Change
(std.error)
Change
(std.error)
Variable
Dist. to large improvement
-2.617 *
-1.778
-3.132 **
-2.307
(1.709)
(1.706)
Dist. to coast
8.045
5.467
7.847
5.782
(5.875)
(5.839)
Residency_dum(> 5 years)
19.595
13.317
23.447
17.277
(81.230)
(80.089)
Experience with waterpollution
62.568
42.522
47.246
34.813
(66.987)
(66.449)
Trips along the river
94.923
64.511
88.302
65.065
(73.052)
(72.739)
Short1 (dummy = 1 if asked short improvement first)
179.384 ****
121.911
203.988 ****
150.307
(66.426)
(66.203)
Finds the improvement possible
249.802 ****
169.769
209.133 ****
154.098
(67.504)
(67.285)
Use the river
151.447 **
102.925
129.207 *
95.205
(82.264)
(81.956)
Household income
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
(0.000)
(0.000)
Retired
-138.099
-93.854 -131.269
-96.724
(113.174)
(113.301)
Gender
-131.659 **
-89.477 -164.963 ***
-121.552
(67.710)
(66.976)
Age
-2.924
-1.987
-2.077
-1.531
(3.062)
(3.035)
Constant
176.835
120.179
319.506 **
235.425
(188.229)
(185.27)
sigma_e
823.8128
796.7323
(27.580)
(26.431)
N
721
665
****, ***, **, * indicates statistical significance at respectively 1, 5, 10, 15 % level
One of the hypotheses in this case study, as well as in the AQUAMONEY study, is that
there should be a distance decay, at least for users of the river. The estimated WTP drops
by 1.53 DKK/kilometre for the short improvement and 2.31 DKK/kilometre for the large
improvement, as seen from table 8 and 9.
The results also show that WTP increases with distance to the coast, and that those who
have experienced water pollution have a larger WTP. Frequent users have a larger WTP
as well as users going for trips along the river banks. Retired people have a lower WTP.
Choice experiments results
As mentioned before, there are two subsamples (splits) for the choice experiments in
Odense River survey. Split one received CE choice sets with maps (see figure 8), and the
other with “conventional” CE choice sets in tables, with text information (figure 9).
35
Descriptive statistics for the two subsamples used for both the CE and the CVeconometric estimations are presented in Table 7.
The variables ‘better’ and ‘worse’ are related to whether respondents agree with
information provided concerning the current quality of Odense River. Although the
majority of the respondents agree with the current water quality level as described, there
is a non-negligible probability that some respondents disagree. In particular, 8 percent of
the respondents believed that water quality is better than described in the survey while
25-26 percent believed it is worse than described. The disagreement with current quality
estimates seems to be fairly equal for versions 1 and 2.6
Table 10. CE split samples, descriptive statistics
Variable
Description
Age
Respondent age in years
Female
1 if female respondent
Users
1 if the respondent is a user
Angler
1 if the respondent is an angler
Distance
7
In meters
Better
1 if the respondent thinks that the
water quality is better than described
Worse
1 if the respondent thinks that the
water quality is worse than described
Survey
Vers. 1
Survey
Vers. 2
Mean
Mean
(St.dv)
(St.dv)
50.00
50.00
(15)
(15)
0.43
0.45
(0.5)
(0.5)
0.42
0.38
(0.49)
(0.48)
0.17
0.19
(0.37)
(0.39)
100397
30847
(70662)
(25326)
0.08
0.08
(0.28)
(0.27)
0.26
0.25
(0.44)
(0.43)
Table 11 presents the RPL model for survey version 1 and 2.
The joint probability (to agree with the current quality level and believing in future improvements) is 22
percent in survey version 1 and 25 percent in survey version 2.
6
For survey version 1 it is the aggregated distance from the residence of the respondents to the three river-stretches.
The distance spans from 14,609 to 298,832 meter. For survey version 2 it is the minimal distance to the nearest
point of the river. The distance spans from 85 to 90,125 meter.
7
36
Table 11. Random Parameter Logit (P-value in parenthesis).
Survey version 1
Nr. of individuals
382
Nr. of observations
3820
Survey version 2
372
3720
Survey version 1
Coeff.
0.206
(0.596)
0.003
(0.505)
-0.430
(0.008)
-0.457
(0.018)
-0.297
(0.181)
-0.00000247
(0.071)
1.461
(0.000)
0.379
(0.095)
Survey version 2
Coeff.
0.179
(0.633)
-0.009
-0.077
0.359
(0.025)
-0.814
(0.000)
-0.444
(0.032)
-0.0000126
(0.01)
-0.811
(0.009)
-0.226
(0.313)
ASC P(Opt-out)
Age
Female
User
Angler
Distance
Better
Worse
Attribute
Stretch 1: Good
Stretch 1: Very
good
Stretch 2: Good
Stretch 2: Very
good
Stretch 3: Good
Stretch 3: Very
good
Cost
(year/household)
Attribute
Good
Very good
Angling
Access
Cultivated Land
Cost
(year/household)
Coeff.
1.035
(0.000)
1.986
(0.000)
1.366
(0.000)
1.64
(0.000)
0.606
(0.000)
0.685
(0.000)
-0.0027
(0.000)
Coeff.
1.497
0
1.667
0
-0.228
-0.03
0.652
0
0.339
-0.048
-0.003
0
St.dv
1.862
(0.000)
2.452
(0.000)
1.631
(0.000)
1.81
(0.000)
1.628
(0.000)
1.654
(0.000)
St.dv
1.82
0
2.51
0
1.02
0
1.77
0
1.38
0
St.dv
1.862
0
2.452
0
1.631
0
1.81
0
1.628
0
1.654
0
37
The models are estimated with Nlogit 4.0 using simulated maximum likelihood with
Halton draws with 500 replications. See Train (2003) for details on simulated maximum
likelihood. The RPL models we present are estimated in 2 steps. In table 11 only
significant interactions with attributes are included.
Removing highly insignificant terms (at 20 percent level) is important in our case as it
affects the precision of the welfare estimates and therefore also the final conclusion about
the affect of scenario realism.
All attributes coefficients in Table 11 have the expected signs except the angling attribute
in survey 2 that has a negative sign and the distance decay function in both versions.
All estimated standard deviations of the random attribute parameters are significant.
As seen from the table the distance parameter is negative, and very small.
The figure below can be used to explain some of the reasons for this – from this figure we
can see that the probability to opt-out is more or less a constant function of the distance
up to a distance of about 25 km where after it drops dramatically. This can explain the
missing distance decay, and the fact that respondents have a higher probability to opt out
when they live close to the river than more distant respondents can be explained by the
fact that a large part of the respondents perceive the river quality in the status quo as
better than we present the quality.
38
0,6
0,5
Marginal
probability to opt
out
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
Distance in
meters
0
25000
50000
75000
100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Figure 18. Marginal probability to opt out as a function of distance
An explanation of the opt-out tendency close to the river can also that these respondents
living close to the river are not willing to pay more for a better water quality because they
like the current state. Further, the almost opposite distance-decay might therefore be a
result of people living far from the river are answering to water quality in general, and
that people close to the river that have a better knowledge of the river, and like the current
state, are less likely to pay for the change.
4.5. Total Economic Value
The calculation of the total economic value (TEV) can be done aggregating in different ways
(see Bateman et al 2000). We have chosen two approaches; but will continue to work on these
estimations using more sophisticated GIS approaches to include the distance. These GIS work
are however not a part of this case study report.
Table 12. TEV in DKK. for CVM (N= 464614)
TEV aggregation types
TEV for short improvement (all observations)
TEV for short improvement (without protest bids)
TEV for large improvement (all observations)
TEV for large improvement (without protest bids)
Number of households in the 19 municipalities
TEV
136,754,671
149,920,391
204,965,860
222,598,565
464,614
39
Table 12 reflects a simple aggregation of the WTP for the 19 municipalities; the mean WTP is
multiplied with the total number of households in the 19 municipalities. The aggregation is done
for the short and the large improvement – with and without the protest bids.
To aggregate using the distance decay, the area is divided into the municipalities (in some
municipalities we have very few observations; they are therefore aggregated with a neighbour
municipality). The mean WTP is estimated for each municipality group, and then multiplied
with the number of households in this group/area. The mean WTP for the areas is presented in
table 13.
Table 13. WTP(DKK) in municipalities
Municipality
Odense
Southern
Funen
Ærø
Langeland
Svendborg
Western
Funen
Assens
FaaborgMidtfyn
Middelfart
Northern
Funen
Nordfyns
Nyborg
Kerteminde
Kolding
Vejle
Hedensted
Southern
Jutland
Haderslev
Sønderborg
Tønder
Vejen
Total
Mean
distance to
Odense River
#
(m)
Households
91385
3954.55
38176
3571
6936
27669
30201.50
41139.40
20197.40
58064
18414
12505.00
23132
16518
6829.02
29670.60
37798
12768
14506
10524
40047
47294
18948
16029.60
19634.70
12510.40
54655.00
74548.70
58538.10
97935
25818
35655
18192
18270
56768.00
37596.60
88998.80
78550.50
WTP
(DKK/household/annum)
Benefits (DKK/annum)
Short
#
Large
Large
Short
Obs. improvement improvement improvement
improvement
183
311.2
444.7
28,440,931
40,636,981
75
294.3
590.0
11,235,857
22,524,546
82
292.1
542.8
16,960,117
31,518,231
87
382.0
480.4
14,439,172
18,157,993
95
65
50
190.8
195.9
223.8
292.4
289.2
372.2
7,642,670
9,263,523
4,239,725
11,710,736
13,676,748
7,053,355
47
467.1
559.2
45,742,216
54,764,655
137,964,212
200,043,245
In figure 19 a map of the municipalities and Odense River is presented. The darkness of the
green colour indicates how far away from Odense River the municipality is. The distance used
is the mean distance in the municipality. The blue line is Odense River.
40
Figure 19 Municipalities and distance to Odense River
The map shown in figure 19 is used for the aggregation presented in table 14.
In table 14 the WTP for users (respondents who have responded positive to have visited the
river) are presented.
Table14 WTP (DKK) in municipality for users
Municipality
Odense
Southern Funen
Ærø
Langeland
Svendborg
Western Funen
Assens
Faaborg-Midtfyn
Middelfart
Northern Funen
Nordfyns
Nyborg
Kerteminde
Jutland
Kolding
Vejle
Hedensted
Haderslev
Sønderborg
Tønder
Vejen
Mean
distance to
Odense River
(m)
# Households
91385
3954.55
38176
3571
30201.50
6936
41139.40
27669
20197.40
58064
18414
12505.00
23132
6829.02
16518
29670.60
48175
16029.60
16029.60
19634.70
19634.70
12510.40
12510.40
449655.70
54655.00
54655.00
74548.70
74548.70
58538.10
58538.10
56768.00
56768.00
37596.60
37596.60
88998.80
88998.80
78550.50
78550.50
WTP (DKK/household/annum)
Large
Short
improvement
# Obs. improvement
154
320.84
455.83
17
288.06
438.85
32
228.07
641.16
41
475.25
556.33
33
229.3
506.95
41
In table 15, the distance from the improved river (stretch) to the point where the willingness to
pay equals zero is estimated. As stated earlier this survey had a maximum radius of 100 km
from Odense River, according to table 15 the WTP does not fall to zero within this area.
For the short improvement the WTP falls to zero at a distance of 144 km from the river while
the distance is 212 km for the large improvement (both without protest bids). Another problem
arises as the boundary is moved; how to handle WTP in Germany as the border is within this
distance.We have chosen not to include German citizens.
Table 15. Estimated distance for WTP=0
Distance where WTP=0
Short improvement (all observations)
Short improvement (without protest bids)
Large improvement (all observations)
Large improvement (without protest bids)
KM
119.17
143.91
168.58
212.36
Table 16 present the aggregated WTP for the CE-results. The three stretches of Odense River is
aggregated and then multiplied with the number of households in the 19 municipalities in the
survey. As mentioned no distance decay was found in the CE.
Table 16. TEV in DKK. for CE survey 1
Attribute Level /Water Quality
Good
Very good
Number of households in the 19 municipalities
WTP sum of stretch 1, 2 & 3
TEV
1,053 489,238,542
1,430 664,398,020
464,614
5. Conclusions
The present study is the first economic valuation of the benefits of attaining “good and
very good ecological status” in water bodies in Denmark, and is one of the very few
studies dealing witth the benefits of improvements of surface water quality in Denmark.
The main objective of this study has been to estimate the benefits of improvements of the
ecological status of Odense River according to the water framework directive. The survey
focused on households’ recreational use of water bodies and their willingness to pay for
improvements of the ecological status of Odense River. The internet survey was
conducted on 754 households in Funen and the municipalities of the Southern Danish
region in the summer of 2008. The changes/improvements valued were good and very
good water quality as compared to the initial conditions of the river that are of moderate
water quality.
In comparison to the WTP results below Danish households currently pay on average
DKK 4000/yr (533 Euro) per household for water and sanitation.
42
The hypothesis of a distance decay of the WTP was tested, as well as a hypothesis of
scope sensitivity, i.e. that respondents are sensitive to scope and that they are willing to
pay more for a large change than a minor change in the provision of the good.
Distance decay is assessed both with the contingent valuation method and choice
expderiments. In the CV part the willingness to pay drops by 1.53 DKK/kilometre for the
short improvement and 2.31 DKK/kilometre for the large improvement. This means that
for the short improvement the radius of households affected by the improvement is 144
km, while it is 212 km for the large improvement. The larger distance for the large
improvement despite the faster drop, is caused by the higher mean WTP. No significant
distance decay is found in the CE-part of the study.
The sensitivity to scope is tested by asking of the WTP for improvements of the whole
river versus one stretch of the river. The stretch is located outside Odense city, and is 15
km out of the total of 60 km. With the contingent valuation method the mean willingness
to pay for an improvement in Odense River to good ecological status is estimated for a
short improvement (15 km out of Odense River which is approx. 60 km long) to be 323
DKK (43 EURO) per household per year. For the large improvement (the whole river) the
equivalent is estimated to be 479 DKK (64 EURO) per household per year.
Hence, we conclude that the households’ willingness to pay is sensitive to the magnitude
of the improvement, i.e. whether the whole river is improved or only a minor part.
However, the internal scope is much stronger than the external, which is tested by
introducing the short and the large improvement first in two split samples, and
subsequently asking about the long/short improvement. The respondents answering the
long improvement first and then the short have a significantly lower WTP for the smallest
improvement, while this difference is not significant for the other part of the sample
receiving the smallest improvement first.
With the CE method the WTP for obtaining “good quality” for the three river stretches is
estimated to be 329 DKK for stretch 1 close to Odense River, 467 DKK for the middle
stretch and 257 DKK for the stretch closest to the south coast and Arresø. In other words,
the stretch closest to Odense city is not valued highest. The sum of the WTP for the three
stretches is 1053 DKK (141 EURO) per household per year. To obtain “very good”
quality of the water the sum of the WTP for the stretches is estimated to be 1430 DKK
(192 EURO) per household per year (582 + 545 +303 DKK). For this quality the stretch
closest to Odense is valued highest. Valuing good and very good quality imporvements
for the whole river, as one attribute, results in a WTPfor “good” status at 430 DKK (58
EURO) per household per year. Surprisingly there is a lower estimated WTP for a higher
water quality as to obtain “very good” status in this survey version - the WTP is 423
DKK (57 EURO) per household per year. These external scope test results imply no
scope sensitivity as the respondents are willing to pay the same amount for 1/3 of the
river as for the whole river.
The results from the study are going to be used for a Cost Benefit Analysis of the WFD
improvements, and for this use the the total economic value (TEV) is calculated using the
43
estimated distance decay function for the CV-results. Alternatively, aggregation can be
done within the administrative/political region.
For the CV, the TEV for the short improvement to obtain a good quality, is estimated to
be between 138-150 million DKK per year (18-20 million EURO). For the large
improvement the TEV is estimated to be between 200-223 million DKK per year (27-30
million EURO). For the CE, the TEV is more than 3 times as large as for the CV to obtain
a good quality, 489 million DKK per year (66 million EURO). To obtain a very good
quality (using CE) the TEV is 664 million DKK per year (89 million EURO).
There are some uncertainties to the results. First of all a relatively large proportion of the
sample answer that they disagree regarding the initial conditions of the river: A relatively
large proportion (one forth) of the respondents finds that the water quality in Odense
River is worse than they expected; i.e. they have a picture of the river as better than the
one we present. Just over one forth of the respondents finds that the water quality is
consistent with their expectations, and less than ten percent think that the water quality in
fact is worse than the quality we present for them in the status quo. This reveals that a
relatively large part of the sample disagree on the status quo description, despite the fact
that we have informed that this quality information is built on monitoring data and
information from the Environmental Centre in Odense.
6. Best practice recommendations
The water quality ladder, the illustrations of water quality and quantity levels:
Judgment by experts:
Danish water management experts (e.g. the Environmental centre in Odense) mention and
point at the small differences between green and blue level illustrations in the generic
water quality ladder; but also that this is fairly realistic because the differences are not
always visible, the differences are to some degree due to differences in the insect fauna.
The problems of using the water quality ladder can further be that the ladder implies a
hierarchical relationship in the quality and the use of the river. Therefore the experts in
the environmental centre of Funen did not like the idea of a water quality ladder, as the
changes in quality levels are more complex than this ladder indicates. This is why
changes from red to blue to yellow can occur for neighboring stretches – explained by
differences in the bottom conditions (clay, sand) and hydrology (meandering etc).
Because of this, no prohibitions were placed on the appearance of the quality levels green quality can follow after yellow and in fact also after red because of hydrological
conditions (meandering etc) of the river, outlets of waste water etc. In the study we made
restrictions so that the water quality can not be worse, i.e. for the river we employ only
these quality levels: yellow, green and blue, because the river is in moderate conditions.
44
Experiences with laymen
The hierarchical relationships do not necessarily confirm to lay peoples definitions on the
required quality for fishing, boating and swimming either; but from the focus groups
interviews and the personal interviews after the pilot test we found that respondents found
the water quality ladder useful, and that they appreciated that information was presented
in pictures, by icons, text and maps – some of them related most to the pictures and others
to the text. From the pilot test and follow up interviews we therefore concluded that both
the pictures and the maps were understandable for the respondents.
We therefore conclude that the ladder and the illustrations were usable, but also that the
interpretation of the water quality ladder can cause some future explanatory problems
regarding the use of the results because of the uncertainty related to the differences
between respondents’ own perceptions and the scientific and monitoring information
behind the pictures and maps. This problem does not differ from any other survey method
however. The colors used in the ladder and the text presented conform to the text in the
Danish WFD, and hereby a good link is established.
From the study we have experienced that it is important that respondents find information
credible and realistic; if one have doubts about this follow up questions should be asked
to enable analyses of the reliability. We have faced problems regarding the fact that a
proportion of the respondents answered that they perceive the current quality as better
than the environmental centre monitors this quality – leading to differences between what
we present regarding the good and what respondents perceive.
We have furthermore experienced that the WTP for the blue quality is lower than for the
green quality in the CE – this problem can also be linked to the use of the ladder. It is not
straight forward to interpret that the there is a disutility from improvements from green to
blue, but is can be explained by lack of credibility.
The use of maps
The experience from the pilot study and the follow up interviews was that the maps were
understood by most respondents. In the pilot we presented all the different monitoring
stretches for the respondents, and the water quality for all these different stretches. In all
there were 7 stretches in the pilot design. We experienced that dividing the river in so
many stretches (7) was to demanding, and in the final study we reduced the attributes to 3
stretches. We found the same as in Norway that including many substitute sites on the
map would confuse too much, so the substitutes were not marked explicit with colors or
other indications for quality. We asked respondents to point out substitute sites (where
they most frequently go for recreational activities), and to indicate these places on a map.
45
For the CE we made two survey versions, one with maps and one with a traditional
design using a choice scheme for comparison, and this scheme allowed for more detailed
assessments of angling and other uses, i.e. more direct formulation of different useattributes.
The maps and the generic water quality ladder makes the questionnaire and the
illustrations usable for other policy sites and hence for transfers not only of the results and
the benefit function but also for transfers of the questionnaire and survey design.
However, new maps have to be produced, and most preferably focus group testing should
be done to ensure that information is reliable and credible.
Advantages and disadvantages with the sampling method?
We did a web-based sampling by the institute GALLUP and the advantages were that we
could do the survey rather easily and fast, that we could ensure that respondents do not
correct their answers to be consistent (.e.g. answers to follow up questions, scope tests
etc). The internal scope sensitivity and order effects could therefore be tested.
Further interactive maps can be programmed, and sample representativeness is
guaranteed by survey company. The disadvantage is that this method is expensive - in
Denmark it is although cheaper than face to face. Further there is a large need for quality
control as the institute does not have any expert in this field – and it is difficult to build up
experience in the survey institute as they use different staff each time.
The method allows for analysis of non-participants with respect to their home address,
and the information GALLUP already has on socioeconomic characteristics.
Sampling and representativeness
In the main survey we sampled in a wider geographical area than in the pilot to 1)
estimate distance decay 2) have enough respondents for all of the splits. The survey
institute can not secure representative sampling of income and education, but should aim
at this. A geographical representative sampling was established, but as Odense is the area
with most inhabitants an overrepresentation was found here.
Time to answer the survey
Ideally the survey should take around 15 minutes, and we experienced that the most
common reason for non-participation was time – we explained that the survey took 25-30
minutes, which in fact is short time for these complex questions.
Avoid self-selection bias
46
We did not inform the respondents of the theme for the questionnaire before they
accepted to participate to avoid self-selection by people interested in water quality issues
and environmental problems. We were somewhat anxious that not explaining the theme
would affect the response rate negatively, but very few non-respondents choose this as
the reason for non-participation.
Timing of the survey
The survey was conducted in July 2008. It is an excellent time to deal with quality and
use of water, but it was problematic that many households were on holiday. The sampling
period was therefore longer than usual (5 weeks), and the response rate lower.
Recommendations regarding design of future valuation studies
As always, focus groups and pre-testing are essential - how the illustrations are
interpreted by lay people and experts are important issues. Effort should be dedicated to
identifying relevant attributes and their definition for lay public, as well as status quo
interpretation as definition of the status quo is a major issue.
Detailed information on status quo has to be simplified without loosing the link between
the results and the quantitative information on the quality levels.
Ensure geographically sampling, and ensure equal sampling in all splits
River basins are most likely not the best aggregation region, look for the best area to
aggregate over. Ensure rural representatives and make quotas of age, geography, income
etc.
Validity tests
Because of the geographical aspect of river protection scope test and distance decay are
important validity tests, as well as tests in utility of income. Ordering effect can also be
tested along with the sensitivity to scope – internal and external. The latter is the strongest
test.
Reporting
The use of maps in reporting is appealing and illustrative for the users. This is also the
fact of other answers than the WTP; the other questions can be used as a rich database for
people’s perception of river and river bank recreation. Qualitative information/answers
are important to present as well as quantitative.
By using the benefit estimated together with costs the results can be used for testing
derogation/exemptions from objectives, as one way of testing this very complicated
question. But if substitutes are not considered properly, this can be very difficult
Making the results visible and used
47
We disseminate results to Danish EPA, environmental centers (RB authorities), at internal
meetings and popular scientific conferences, write article in popular journals as well as
international, scientific articles.
More contact to water managers
We have experienced a large demand for knowledge about the economic consequences of
the WFD, but rather vague ideas of how to use the results regarding the benefits. We have
presented the results whenever possible, and we recommend making examples of costbenefit assessments and use of valuation results for exemptions testing.
References
Baattrup-Pedersen, A., G. Springe, T. Riis, S.E: Larsen, K. S. Jensen, L.M. K. Larsen, 2008: The
search for reference conditions for stream vegetation in northern Europe. Freshwater Biology,
53(9), 1890-1901.
Barbier, E.B., M. Acreman, D. Knowler, 1997. Economic Valuation of Wetlands, a guide for
policy makers and Planners. RAMSAR Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.
Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Nishikawa, N., Lake, I., 2000. The Axford Debate Revisited: A
Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 43(2) pp291-302.
Bateman, I.J., Day, B.H., Georgiou, S., Lake, I., 2006. The aggregation of environmental benefit
values: Welfare measures, distancr decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics 60 pp450-460
Cho S-H, Newman, D.H., Bowker, J.M. 2005. Measuring rural homeowners’ willingness to pay
for land conservation easements. Forest Policy and Economics 7 757-770.
County of Funen (2003). Odense Pilot River. Provisional Article 5 Report pursuant to the Water
Framework Directive. Fyn County.
http://odenseprbuk.fyns-amt.dk/wm134077
Freeman, A.M. III, 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource values. Theory and
methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Gunatilake, H., Yang, J-C., Pattanayak, S., Choe, K.A., 2007. Good Practices for Estimating
Relieble Willingness-to-Pay Values in the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector. Asian
Development Bank ERD Technical note series no. 23
NRC, National Research Council, 1997. Valuing groundwater. Economic concepts and
approaches. National Academic Press, Washington, DC.
48
NRC, National Research Council, 2004. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Toward better
environmental decision-making, Washington, DC.
Hime, S. and Bateman, I.J. (2009) A transferable water quality ladder for conveying use and
ecological information within public surveys, ChREAM project, Centre for Social and Economic
Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University of East Anglia.
Kataria M, B. Hasler, C. J. Nissen, T. Christensen, L.Martinsen, J. Ladenburg, G. Levin, A.
Dubgaard, I. Bateman and S.Hime (unpublished paper): Scenario realism and welfare estimates
in choce experiments. Evidence from a study on implementation of the water framework
directive in a Danish River.
Rogers, P., R. de Silva, and R. Bhatia. 2002. Water is an economic good. How to use prices to
promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water Policy (4): 1-17.
WATECO, 2002. Economics and the Environment. The implementation challenge of the Water
Framework
Directive. A Guidance Document. Guidance document N.1, Common
Implementation Strategy for the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive, European
Commission 2002. http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/.
Young, R., 2005. Determining the economic value of water: concepts and methods. Resources
for the Future, Washington, DC.
49
Appendix A. The questionnaire (In Danish)
Kære panelist,
Denne undersøgelse udgør en del af et større forskningsprojekt, som udføres af forskere fra
Aarhus Universitet, Københavns Universitet og forskningsinstituttet Anvendt
KommunalForskning.
Det tager ca. 25-30 minutter at besvare skemaet, og du er selvfølgelig velkommen til at holde
pause undervejs. Du kan dog ikke gemme din besvarelse. Som deltager er du med i
lodtrækningen om 3 gavekort á 300 kr. til Gavekortet.dk.
Vinderne får direkte besked fra G@llupForum.
1. Har du lyst til at deltage i undersøgelsen?
(Sæt ét kryds)
Ja ........................................................
Nej .......................................................
Filter 1: Kun hvis Q1= Nej
Hvis du har svaret nej, vil vi alligevel høre dig, om du vil opgive dit postnummer?
1.a Postnummer:………………………….
Ønsker ikke at oplyse postnummer 
1.b Hvad er årsagen til, at du ikke ønsker at deltage?
Jeg har ikke tid inden for den angivne periode, men jeg kan kontaktes senere...
Jeg har ikke tid ................................................................................................
Jeg har ikke interesse i at deltage i et forskningsprojekt .....................................
25-30 minutter er for lang tid…………………………………………………...
Jeg vil ikke deltage, når jeg ikke ved hvad undersøgelsen drejer sig om
…………………………………………………..................................................
Andet……………………....................................................................................
Tak for dit svar.
Filter 1: Slut
Indledende spørgsmål
Er du…?
(Sæt ét kryds)
Mand 
Kvinde
Hvor bor du?
For at kunne bearbejde din besvarelse, skal vi bruge din nuværende adresse
Disse oplysninger vil ikke blive offentliggjort.
50
Skriv vejnavn her:…………………………………………………………………………
Marker dit husnummer ved at sætte kryds i en af disse rubrikker:
1-20
..............................................................
21-40
..............................................................
41-60
..............................................................
61-80
..............................................................
81-100
..............................................................
101-120
..............................................................
121-140
..............................................................
141-161
..............................................................
161-180
..............................................................
181-200
..............................................................
201-220
..............................................................
221-240
..............................................................
241-260
..............................................................
261-280
..............................................................
281-300
..............................................................
301-400
..............................................................
401-450
..............................................................
451-500
..............................................................
551-600
..............................................................
601-650
..............................................................
650-700
..............................................................
700+
..............................................................






















Skriv dit postnummer her:…………………………
Vil ikke afgive adresse

Nedenfor er der vist et kort. Vi vil bede dig om at markere, hvor du bor på dette kort. Flyt
musen til dette sted på kortet og klik.
NYT kort over Fyn og det sydlige Jylland indsættes af GALLUP
51
52
2. Hvor længe har du boet på denne adresse?
Hele mit liv ........................................
Mere end 5 år .....................................
Mellem 1 og 5 år ................................
Mindre end 1 år..................................
Ønsker ikke at svare...........................
Filter 3: kun hvis Q4 forskellig fra ”hele mit liv”
3. Hvor har du boet før du bosatte dig på denne adresse?
Samme område (postnummer) som nu 
Et andet område på Fyn ..................... 
Et andet område i Jylland...................
Sjælland eller Bornholm ....................
Andet (udlandet) ...............................
Jeg har boet på adressen hele mit liv .
Ønsker ikke at svare...........................
Filter 3: Slut
Hoved-fokus for denne undersøgelse er rekreation i og i nærheden af vand – dvs. vandløb og
åer, søer, fjorde og kysten. Med rekreation mener vi udendørs aktiviteter som for eksempel
gåture, løbeture, ture med hunden, fisketure, jagt, badeture, roture, ture hvor du ser efter fugle og
dyr, picnic/frokost i det grønne og lignende.
Vi er interesserede i din personlige mening om de spørgsmål vi stiller, uanset hvor meget du
bruger naturen og interesserer dig for friluftsliv eller vandmiljø, og uanset hvilken viden du i
forvejen har om friluftsliv og vandmiljø. Din besvarelse er sikret fuld anonymitet.
Vi vil nu stille dig nogle spørgsmål om dine rekreative vaner.
4. Hvor ofte bruger du naturområder rekreativt – så som ture ved en fjord, en
kyststrækning, en strand, i skoven, ved en sø, langs et vandløb eller en å – eller i det åbne
land?
Jeg besøger naturområder:
Sjældnere end 1 gang årligt................ ...................................
1 gang årligt ....................................... ...................................
en gang hver 6. måned (2 gange årligt)..................................
en gang hver 3. måned (4 gange årligt)..................................
en gang om måneden (12 gange årligt) .................................
en gang hver fjortende dag (25 gange om året) ....................
en gang ugentligt (50 gange om året) ....................................
to gange ugentligt (100 gange om året) .................................
mere end to gange ugentligt (200 gange om året)..................
hver dag (365 gange om året). ...............................................
Aldrig ................................................. ...................................
Ved ikke, ønsker ikke at svare .......... ...................................
53
6.b Hvor mange rekreative ture (angiv ca. antal) til øvrige naturområder har du været på i
løbet af det sidste år
Ca. ............................ ture i naturen
7. Hvor ofte bruger du åer og mindre vandløb – samt områder ved åer og vandløb – til
rekreative formål? Dvs. hvor ofte (ca.) går eller løber du en tur langs et vandløb eller en å, fisker,
går på jagt, bader, tager på telttur, ser efter fugle og dyr eller spiser frokost ved en å eller et
mindre vandløb?
Sjældnere end 1 gang årligt................ ...................................
1 gang årligt ....................................... ...................................
en gang hver 6. måned (2 gange årligt)..................................
en gang hver 3. måned (4 gange årligt)..................................
en gang om måneden (12 gange årligt) .................................
en gang hver fjortende dag (25 gange om året) ....................
en gang ugentligt (50 gange om året) ....................................
to gange ugentligt (100 gange om året) .................................
mere end to gange ugentligt (200 gange om året)..................
hver dag (365 gange om året). ...............................................
Aldrig ................................................. ...................................
7.a Hvor mange rekreative ture (angiv ca. antal) til vandløb og åer har du været på i løbet
af det sidste år
Ca. ............................ ture til vandløb og/eller åer
54
8. Hvor ofte foretager du dig de forskellige aktiviteter beskrevet nedenfor, når du besøger
en å eller et vandløb?
(Sæt kun ét kryds i hver række)
Ofte
(næsten
hver
gang du
besøger
åen)
Nogle gange
(ca. halvdelen
af besøgene)
Sjældent
Aldrig
Ture langs bredden af
åen så som gåture, cykelture,
løbeture, fodring af ænder,
picnic/frokost, sidde stille




Ikke motoriseret sejlads (så som
kanosejlads, roning)




Motoriseret sejlads




Bade, svømme, soppe




Fiske efter laks og ørred







Fiske efter andre fisk, fx gedde, sandart, aborre,
skalle

Naturoplevelser, se på dyr og fugle




Gå tur med hunden




Andet




I de næste spørgsmål vil vi spørge dig om nogle foreslåede forbedringer af vandmiljøet på
Fyn. Det er meget vigtigt for undersøgelsens resultater, at så mange som muligt svarer. Selv
om du måske ikke bor på Fyn eller interesserer dig for vandmiljø vil vi derfor meget gerne
høre din mening.
I disse år lægges der planer med henblik på at forbedre kvaliteten af vandet i søer, åer/vandløb,
fjorde og kystvande. Denne undersøgelse giver dig en mulighed for at udtrykke din mening om
disse planer for Odense Å på Fyn.
De kommende spørgsmål handler således om vandkvaliteten for Odense Å.
Vi bruger symboler, tegninger og tekst for at forklare hvordan forskellig vandkvalitet i Odense Å
medfører forskellige muligheder for at bruge vandet til rekreative formål. Vandkvaliteten i en å
55
betyder noget for folks oplevelse af naturen ved åen. Vandkvaliteten påvirker også andre
aktiviteter, samt levevilkårene for planter og dyr.
 Dette symbol
fiskearter
viser at vandkvaliteten er god nok for selv meget forureningsfølsomme
 Dette symbol
viser at vandet er egnet til fisk som er mindre forureningsfølsomme
 Dette symbol
viser at vandet er egnet som badevand
(svarende til blåt flag)
 Dette symbol
viser at vandet er egnet til at ro eller sejle i
 Dette symbol
viser at vandet er egnet som leve- og opholdssted
for fugle, og at det derfor er gode muligheder for at se fugle
Når vandkvaliteten aftager, så reduceres også levevilkårene for dyr og planter, samt
mulighederne for at foretage de beskrevne aktiviteter. Symboler med halvt eller helt kryds viser
at mulighederne for at foretage disse aktiviteter aftager delvist eller forsvinder helt.
Billederne nedenfor viser en å i forskellige vandkvaliteter – og vi bruger billederne her til at vise
kvaliteten af forskellige strækninger af Odense Å.
Symbolerne under billederne viser, hvilke aktiviteter miljømyndighederne vurderer, at vandet
kan bruges til. Vi beder dig om at tage dig god tid til at studere billederne og symbolerne, og om
at lægge mærke til forskellene mellem billederne – de er forskellige når det gælder vandets
klarhed, fisk, planter mv.
Ved hvert billede er der en farve. Vi bruger rød til at indikere den laveste vandkvalitet, og gul,
grøn og blå for at vise stigende vandkvalitet.
I de følgende spørgsmål bruger vi disse farver til at beskrive vandkvaliteten i Odense Å.
Vandkvaliteten er opgjort af Miljøcenter Odense, som er den officielle myndighed, som
overvåger kvaliteten af vandområderne på Fyn.
I de kommende spørgsmål vil der være et link, som du kan klikke på med musen, hvis du vil se
billederne og den forklarende tekst igen.
56
Højeste kvalitet
Dette billede viser en å i den højeste
kvalitet.
Vandet er egnet til roning, fiskeri, og
svømning.
Vandet er egnet for alle typer fisk,
planter og fugle, som er naturligt
forekommende i denne type vandløb.
Dette billede viser en å hvor vandet er
egnet til roning, svømning og fiskeri, selv
om de mest forureningsfølsomme fisk kan
være fraværende.
Mangfoldigheden af fugle og planter er
noget mindre end i den højeste tilstand.
Dette billede viser en å hvor vandet er
egnet til roning, men hvor mulighederne
for svømning og fiskeri er mere
begrænsede.
Der forekommer forureningsfølsomme
fisk men disse er delvis udsat (dvs. ikke
naturligt forekommende). Forekomsten af
fisk, fugle og planter er begrænset.
Dette billede viser en å hvor vandet ikke
er egnet til roning, fiskeri eller svømning.
Der er et meget begrænset fugle- og
planteliv, og der er kun få eller ingen fisk.
Laveste kvalitet
57
Kortet nedenfor viser at den nuværende tilstand for Odense Å svarer til den gule tilstand.
Vandkvaliteten kan variere noget fra sted til sted på åen. At vandkvaliteten varierer er der flere
forskellige årsager til; f.eks. udslip fra bebyggelser og veje mv., udvaskning af næringsstoffer fra
landbruget, samt forskellige fysiske forhold og vandgennemstrømning i åen. Men generelt er
Odense Å i den gule tilstand.
Hvis du vil gå tilbage for at se teksten, billederne og symbolerne igen så klik på dette link, som
vises hver gang du ser et nyt kort .
Kort CVM: aaen_all_ yellow
9. Svarer denne beskrivelse af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å til din opfattelse?
(Sæt ét kryds)
Ja, det passer fint med min opfattelse ...................................
Åen er i en bedre tilstand end jeg troede ...............................
Åen er i en dårligere tilstand end jeg troede .........................
Jeg kender ikke noget til vandkvaliteten i Odense Å.............
Ved ikke ................................................................................
Vi beder dig nu forestille dig, at miljømyndighederne foreslår at forbedre vandkvaliteten på en
mindre del af Odense Å. Miljømyndighederne vil gerne vide om private husstande mener at dette
forslag er meningsfyldt, og om husstandene vil bidrage til at betale for gennemførslen.
Forbedringerne er forbundet med omkostninger. Disse omkostninger skal dækkes ved et
ekstra beløb, der opkræves over den årlige vandregning. Hvis forslaget besluttes iværksat,
vil alle brugere af vand og alle bidragsydere til forureningen af åen (industri, landbrug og
private husstande) skulle betale dette årlige beløb.
Vi beder dig om at tage følgende i betragtning, når du besvarer de efterfølgende spørgsmål om
hvor meget din husstand er villig til at betale for forbedringer af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å:
a. En forbedring af vandkvaliteten medfører at den årlige vandregning stiger
for at dække udgifterne til forbedringen. For at kunne opretholde den
højere vandkvalitet skal det ekstra beløb betales hvert år fremover.
b. Investeringen og stigningen i vandregningen vil starte i 2008, men der vil
gå flere år før forbedringen vil være som vist.
c. Beløbet betales som et tillæg til den årlige vandregning som husstanden
betaler nu. Det beløb du vælger er således hele husstandens samlede
betaling for denne forbedring.
d. Det ekstra beløb som din husstand er villig til at betale vil ændre og
begrænse dine og din husstands muligheder for at købe andre ting og
tjenester.
58
e. Beløbet vil kun blive anvendt til denne forbedring. Forbedringen vil ikke
påvirke drikkevandkvaliteten.
f. Beløbet betales for en forbedring af denne strækning af Odense Å.
Forslaget omhandler ikke forbedringer af andre strækninger af åen, af
andre vandområder på Fyn eller andre steder.
59
Den strækning, der foreslås forbedret, udgør ca. 15 km ud af åens godt 60 km. Kvaliteten
på strækningen ændres fra gul til blå tilstand. Strækningen ligger tæt på Odense by. Kortet
nedenfor viser Odense Å og den forbedrede strækning.
Aaen_15km_blue
10. I nedenstående tabel beder vi dig igen om at vurdere hvilket beløb, din husstand
maksimalt er villig til at betale årligt, som et ekstra beløb til vandregningen, for at
vandkvaliteten på denne 15 km lange strækning af Odense Å ændres fra den
nuværende gule tilstand til den blå tilstand. Det er kun denne strækning som
ændres, og resten af Odense Å vil fortsat være i den gule tilstand. Vi beder dig igen
om at overveje dit svar nøje. Husk, din husstand vil skulle betale dette beløb hvert
år.
Sæt venligst et kryds.
0 kr
20 kr
40 kr
80 kr
110 kr
150 kr
190 kr
220 kr
260 kr
300 kr
340 kr
380 kr
410 kr
450 kr
490 kr
520 kr
















560 kr
600 kr
640 kr
680 kr
710 kr
750 kr
790 kr
820 kr
860 kr
900 kr
940 kr
970 kr
1010 kr
1050 kr
1090 kr
1130 kr
















1200 kr
1280 kr
1350 kr
1430 kr
1500 kr
1690 kr
1880 kr
2060 kr
2250 kr
2440 kr
2630 kr
3000 kr
3380 kr
3750 kr
4130 kr
4500 kr
















4880 kr
5250 kr
5630 kr
6000 kr
6380 kr
6750 kr
7130 kr
7500 kr
7880 kr
8250 kr
8630 kr
9000 kr
>9000 kr













Andet, notér:
Ved ikke

11. For dem der svarer 0 i spm 10: Hvorfor svarede du ”0 kroner” i det foregående
spørgsmål? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.
60
Vigtigste
Næst
vigtigste
Forøgelsen af vandregningen er for høj sammenlignet
med de beskrevne forbedringen af vandkvaliteten


Den forbedrede strækning af Odense Å ligger for langt
væk fra min bopæl


Jeg bruger ikke denne strækning af Odense Å


Den nuværende tilstand på strækningen er god nok


Jeg tror ikke at vandkvaliteten forbedres som beskrevet


Jeg vil hellere betale for forbedringer af en anden
strækning af Odense Å


Jeg vil hellere betale for forbedringen af en anden å


Jeg vil hellere anvende mine penge på andre ting


Jeg har ikke råd til at betale mere i vandregning, end jeg
gør nu


Dem der bruger Odense Å skal betale for forbedringerne


Vandværket bør betale for forbedringen


Staten bør betale for dette


Vandregningerne er for høje allerede


Spørgsmålet var for svært a svare på


Andet


12. For dem der svarer mere end 0 i spm 10: Hvorfor er du, og din husstand, villig til at
betale for forbedring af vandkvaliteten på denne strækning af Odense Å? Angiv
venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.
61
Vigtigste
Næst
vigtigste
Ændringen af netop denne strækningen af Odense Å vil
være god og værdifuld for mig og min husstand


Ændringen af Odense Å vil være god og værdifuld for
mig og min husstand


Jeg er interesseret i disse forbedringer uanset hvor meget
de koster


Jeg er interesseret i de fordele som forbedringen vil
medføre for andre udenfor min husstand


Alle mennesker bør kunne opleve bedre vandløb, uanset
hvad de synes er bedst


Jeg vil være med til at beskytte vandmiljøet for de vilde
dyr og planters skyld


Jeg føler at dette var det moralsk rigtige svar


Jeg forstod ikke spørgsmålet


Andet


13. Hvor sandsynligt tror du det er, at de beskrevne ændringer i vandkvaliteten faktisk
vil indtræffe. Sæt et kryds
Sandsynligt
Forholdsvis sandsynligt
Forholdsvis usandsynligt
Usandsynligt




14. Hvor vanskeligt synes du det var at angive et beløb? Sæt et kryds
Meget vanskeligt
Vanskeligt
Hverken eller
Nemt
Meget nemt





62
Vi beder dig nu igen forestille dig, at miljømyndighederne vil forbedre tilstanden, men nu
for hele Odense Å. Odense Å er ca. 60 km lang.
Forbedringen indebærer, at kvaliteten ændres fra den nuværende gule tilstand (vist på det
foregående kort) til den blå tilstand som vist på kortet nedenfor.
CVM kort aaen_all_blue
15. I nedenstående tabel har vi igen angivet en række beløb. Vi beder dig nu om at sætte
et kryds ud for det beløb, som din husstand maksimalt er villig til at betale som et
ekstra beløb over den årlige vandregning for, at hele Odense Å ændres fra den
nuværende gule tilstand til den blå tilstand. Vi beder dig om at overveje dit svar
nøje. Husk, din husstand vil skulle betale dette beløb hvert år.
Sæt venligst et kryds.
0 kr
20 kr
40 kr
80 kr
110 kr
150 kr
190 kr
220 kr
260 kr
300 kr
340 kr
380 kr
410 kr
450 kr
490 kr
520 kr
















560 kr
600 kr
640 kr
680 kr
710 kr
750 kr
790 kr
820 kr
860 kr
900 kr
940 kr
970 kr
1010 kr
1050 kr
1090 kr
1130 kr
















1200 kr
1280 kr
1350 kr
1430 kr
1500 kr
1690 kr
1880 kr
2060 kr
2250 kr
2440 kr
2630 kr
3000 kr
3380 kr
3750 kr
4130 kr
4500 kr
















4880 kr
5250 kr
5630 kr
6000 kr
6380 kr
6750 kr
7130 kr
7500 kr
7880 kr
8250 kr
8630 kr
9000 kr
>9000 kr













Andet, notér:
Ved ikke

16. LINK: For dem der svarer 0 i spm 15: Hvorfor svarede du ”0 kroner” i det
foregående spørgsmål? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.
63
Vigtigste
Næst
vigtigste
Forøgelsen af vandregningen er for høj sammenlignet
med de beskrevne forbedringer af vandkvaliteten


Åen ligger for langt væk fra min bopæl


Jeg bruger ikke Odense Å


Den nuværende tilstand er god nok


Jeg tror ikke at vandkvaliteten vil forbedres som
beskrevet


Jeg vil hellere betale for forbedringer af en anden å


Jeg vil hellere bruge mine penge på andre ting


Jeg har ikke råd til at betale mere i vandregning end jeg
gør nu


Dem der bruger Odense Å skal betale for forbedringerne


Vandværket bør betale for forbedringen


Staten bør betale for dette


Vandregningerne er for høje allerede


Spørgsmålet var for svært a svare på


Andet


0
17. For dem der svarer mere end 0 i spm 15: Hvorfor er du, og din husstand, villig til at
betale for forbedring af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og
næst vigtigste årsag hertil.
64
Vigtigste
Næst
vigtigste
Ændringen vil være god og værdifuld for mig og min
husstand


Jeg er interesseret i disse forbedringer uanset hvor meget
de koster


Jeg er interesseret i de fordele som forbedringen vil
medføre for andre udenfor min husstand


Alle mennesker bør kunne opleve bedre vandløb, uanset
hvad de selv synes er bedst


Jeg vil være med til at beskytte vandmiljøet for de vilde
dyr og planters skyld


Jeg føler at dette var det moralsk rigtige svar


Jeg forstod ikke spørgsmålet


Andet


18. Hvor sandsynligt tror du det er, at de beskrevne ændringer i vandkvaliteten faktisk
vil indtræffe? Sæt et kryds
Sandsynligt
Forholdsvis sandsynligt
Forholdsvis usandsynligt
Usandsynligt




19. Hvor vanskeligt synes du det var at angive et beløb? Sæt et kryds
Meget vanskeligt
Vanskeligt
Hverken eller
Nemt
Meget nemt





65
Vi beder dig nu forestille dig, at miljømyndighederne kommer med nogle mere detaljerede
forslag til at forbedre vandkvaliteten i Odense Å, og at miljømyndighederne beder private
husstande om at vælge mellem disse forslag. Ligesom før er forbedringerne forbundet med
omkostninger. Disse omkostninger skal dækkes ved et ekstra beløb, der opkræves over den
årlige vandregning. Hvis forslaget besluttes iværksat vil alle brugere af vand og alle
bidragsydere til forureningen af åen (industri, landbrug og private husstande) skulle betale
dette årlige beløb.
De foreslåede forbedringer indebærer, at kvaliteten ændres fra den nuværende gule tilstand
(vist på det foregående kort) til forskellige kvaliteter for forskellige strækninger af Odense
Å. Odense Å er som nævnt 60 km lang, og i forslagene til forbedring er åen delt i 3
strækninger. Vandkvaliteten er beskrevet for hver af disse strækninger.
Vi bruger de samme symboler, billeder og farver som tidligere i spørgeskemaet, og hvis du
vil se disse igen, bedes du klikke på linket. Hvis du ikke kan huske hvad farverne på kortet
viser, beder vi dig om at gå ind på linket for at være sikker på dette. GALLUP: LINK her
til side med tegninger og billeder.
Du vil blive præsenteret for i alt 10 valgsituationer. I hver valgsituation bedes du vælge dit
foretrukne alternativ. Du bedes vælge dit foretrukne alternativ under hensyntagen til,
hvilken kvalitet du og din husstand foretrækker, og hvad I maksimalt er villige til årligt at
betale for denne forbedring.
Vi beder dig igen om at tage følgende i betragtning når du foretager dine valg:

En forbedring af vandkvaliteten medfører at den årlige vandregning stiger
for at dække udgifterne til forbedringen. For at kunne opretholde den
højere vandkvalitet, skal det ekstra beløb betales hvert år fremover.

Investeringen og stigningen i vandregningen vil starte i 2008, men der vil
gå flere år før forbedringen vil være som vist.

Beløbet betales som et tillæg til den årlige vandregning, som husstanden
betaler nu. Det beløb du vælger er således hele husstandens samlede
betaling for denne forbedring.

Det ekstra beløb som din husstand er villig til at betale vil ændre og
begrænse dine og din husstands muligheder for at købe andre ting og
tjenester.

Beløbet vil kun blive anvendt til denne forbedring. Forbedringen vil ikke
påvirke drikkevandkvaliteten.

Beløbet betales for en forbedring af Odense Å. Forslaget omhandler ikke
forbedringer af andre vandområder på Fyn eller andre steder.
20. Valg mellem alternative forslag for forbedring af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å
66
Der kommer nu i alt 10 valgsituationer. I hver valgsituation kan du vælge mellem 3
alternativer. Det er muligt at vælge den nuværende tilstand i hver valgsituation, mens de to
øvrige alternativer er forskellige fra valgsituation til valgsituation. Vi beder dig om nøje at
betragte hvert alternativ i hver valgsituation, og overveje om din husstand reelt er villig til
at betale det ekstra årlige beløb for at opnå de beskrevne forbedringer af vandkvaliteten.
GALLUP 10 valgkort indsættes. CE_aaen. Nummerrækkefølge er vigtig.
21. Hvor vanskeligt synes du det var at foretage de 10 valg? Sæt et kryds
Meget vanskeligt
Vanskeligt
Hverken eller
Nemt
Meget nemt





22. Hvor sandsynligt tror du det er, at de beskrevne ændringer i de 10 valg faktisk vil
indtræffe? Sæt et kryds
Sandsynligt
Forholdsvis sandsynligt
Forholdsvis usandsynligt
Usandsynligt
GALLUP: Spørgsmål 23 skal kun besvares, hvis den nuværende situation blev valgt i alle
valgsituationer.
23. Hvorfor valgte du 'den nuværende situation' i alle valgspørgsmålene? Angiv venligst
den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.
67
Vigtigste
Næst
vigtigste
Forøgelsen af vandregningen var generelt for høj
sammenlignet med de beskrevne forbedringer af
vandkvaliteten


Åen ligger for langt væk fra min bopæl


Jeg bruger ikke Odense Å


Den nuværende tilstand er god nok


Jeg tror ikke at vandkvaliteten forbedres som beskrevet


Jeg vil hellere betale for forbedringer af en anden å


Jeg vil hellere anvende mine penge på andre ting


Jeg har ikke råd til at betale mere i vandregning end jeg
gør nu


Dem der bruger Odense Å skal betale for forbedringerne


Vandværket bør betale for forbedringen


Staten bør betale for dette


Vandregningerne er for høje allerede


Det var for svært at vælge


Andet


GALLUP: Spørgsmål 24 skal kun stilles til dem, der mindst én gang har valgt et andet
alternativ end den nuværende situation – dvs. kun til dem, der ikke har fået spørgsmål 23.
24. For de øvrige: Hvorfor er du, og din husstand, villig til at betale for forbedringer af
vandkvaliteten i Odense Å? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag
hertil.
68
Vigtigste
Næst
vigtigste
Ændringerne vil være gode og værdifulde for mig og
min husstand


Jeg er interesseret i disse forbedringer uanset hvor meget
de koster


Jeg er interesseret i de fordele som forbedringen vil
medføre for andre udenfor min husstand


Andre mennesker bør kunne opleve bedre vandløb,
uanset hvad de synes er bedst


Jeg vil være med til at beskytte vandmiljøet for de vilde
dyr og planters skyld


Jeg føler mig moralsk forpligtiget


Andet


25. Var der en eller flere forhold som du ikke tog hensyn til, da du gjorde dine valg?
(Kryds af i de felter som gælder for dig)
□
Ja, jeg tog ikke hensyn til forbedringen af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å for den strækning der
ligger tættest på Odense by
□
Ja, jeg tog ikke hensyn til forbedringen af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å for den midterste
strækning(dvs. strækningen ved Brobyværk)”
□
Ja, jeg tog ikke hensyn til den strækning der ligger tættest på Arresø, dvs. den sydligste
strækning af de tre
□
□
Ja, jeg tog ikke hensyn til den ekstra betaling over vandregningen
Nej, jeg tog hensyn til alle egenskaber, og valgte det alternativ som jeg samlet set foretrak.
26. I hvilken grad havde de nedenstående forhold betydning for dine valg i
spørgsmålene, der omhandlede forskellige alternativer for vandkvaliteten i Odense
Å?
(Sæt kun én markering i hver række)
Ved
I høj grad I nogen I ringe Slet
ikke
grad ikke
grad
69
Forbedringen af vandkvaliteten i Odense å
generelt.................................................................
Forbedringen af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å
på en bestemt strækning.......................................
Forbedringen for rekreative formål i Odense Å...
Forbedringen af forholdene for dyr og
planter i Odense Å ...............................................
Afstanden fra min bopæl til Odense Å ................
Den ekstra vandregning (prisen)..........................
























27. Kendte du Odense Å inden besvarelsen af dette spørgeskema – og bruger du åen?
(Sæt et kryds)
□
□
□
□
□
Nej, jeg har aldrig hørt om Odense Å
Ja, jeg har hørt om Odense Å, men jeg har aldrig været ved åen
Ja, jeg kender Odense Å,. men jeg har ikke brugt åen rekreativt i løbet af det sidste år
Ja, jeg kender Odense Å, og jeg har været ved åen en til to gange i løbet af det sidste år
Ja, jeg kender Odense Å, og jeg bruger ofte Odense Å rekreativt (mere end en gang
månedligt)
28. Hvor langt bor du fra Odense Å (sæt et kryds)
□Afstanden fra min bolig til Odense Å er køreafstand
□Afstanden fra min bolig til Odense Å er cykelafstand
□Afstanden fra min bolig til Odense Å er gåafstand
29. Har du oplevet nogle hændelser med vandforurening i løbet af sommeren 2008?
(Sæt gerne flere kryds)

Ja, jeg har oplevet algeopblomstringer og ubehagelig lugt fra
vandet, der hvor jeg har været

Jeg har oplevet badeforbud

Jeg har læst om forurenet vand, algeopblomstringer og/eller
iltsvind i pressen

Jeg har hørt/set programmer i TV/radio om forurenet vand,
algeopblomstringer og/eller iltsvind

Nej, jeg har ikke oplevet nogen hændelser

Ja, jeg har oplevet hændelser med forurening, men mit
generelle indtryk er, at der er få problemer med
vandforurening
70
Vi vil nu spørge dig om hvilke rekrative områder du bruger i nærheden af hvor du bor - og
om du kan placere disse på kortene nedenfor.
TIL GALLUP: Her skal kortet der er brugt i adressekortlægningen indledningsvist sættes
ind igen, og de skal klikke på det for at vise hvor de tager hen for at besøge naturområder.
30. Først vil vi gerne have oplyst hvilke, åer og vandløb du besøger/bruger?
Kort ligesom adressekort
Hvis du ikke kan placere området på kortet kan du skrive navnet her...............................
Jeg besøger/bruger ikke åer og vandløb rekreativt ......
31. Hvilke søer bruger du rekreativt?
Kort ligesom adressekort.
Hvis du ikke kan placere området på kortet kan du skrive navnet her...............................
Jeg besøger/bruger ikke søer rekreativt: ......
32. Hvilke fjorde, eller dele af fjorde du besøger/bruger rekreativt?
Kort ligesom adressekort.
Hvis du ikke kan placere området på kortet kan du skrive navnet her
..............................
Jeg besøger/bruger ikke fjorde/dele af fjorde rekreativt: ......
33. Hvilke kyststrækninger besøger/bruger du rekreativt?
Kort ligesom adressekort.
Hvis du ikke kan placere området på kortet kan du skrive navnet her
..............................
Jeg besøger/bruger ikke kyststrækninger rekreativt: ......
34. Betaler du eller nogen i din husstand for lystfiskertegn?
Ja ..............................................................................................................
Nej............................................................................................................
Ved ikke/ ønsker ikke at svare
35. Betaler du, eller nogen i din husstand, fiskekort til Odense Å med tilhørende
vandløb?
Ja ..............................................................................................................
Nej............................................................................................................
Ved ikke/ ønsker ikke at svare
71
Din besvarelse er registreret og du deltager nu i lodtrækningen.
Du finder aktuel information samt svar på de oftest stillede spørgsmål på http://gaf.tnsgallup.dk/.
Tak for din deltagelse!
Med venlig hilsen
G@llupForum
72
Appendix B. The generic water quality ladder used in the common valuation
in AQUAMONEY
Source: adapted from Hime and Bateman (2009): Copyright protected.
73