Ecosystem Service Valuation from Floodplain
Restoration in the Danube River Basin: An
International Choice Experiment Application
Paper by M Bliem, R Brouwer,
Z Flachner, M Getzner, S Kerekes, S Milton, T
Palarie, Z Szerényi, A Vadineanu, A Wagtendonk
Presented by M Getzner, Dept of Economics,
Klagenfurt University, Austria
EAERE Pre-conference on Water Economics
24 June 2009, Amsterdam, VU University
Presentation outline
•
•
•
•
•
River restoration – measures and benefits
Common valuation design
Estimated choice models
Welfare measures
Best practice recommendations
Danube river basin
• Second largest river in Europe (2850 km)
• Most river stretches classified as HMWB
• Lack of river connectivity, canalization,
regulation, hydropower
• Ecological restoration important measure to
reach GES
• Costly, benefits unknown
Main objectives
• Economic valuation of the non-market
benefits of ecological floodplain restoration
- Flood control
- Water quality improvement
- (other potential benefits, such as biodiversity
conservation/dynamics and natural processes, not
included)
• Transferability of benefits in international
context: Austria, Hungary, Romania
Location of river restoration projects
Design of a choice experiment
•
•
•
•
Description of river restoration
Water supply and waste water treatment
Experience with floods
CE: Management alternatives and status
quo
• (CV)
• Debriefing questions
10
Overview of attribute levels
Attributes
Flood frequency
Water quality
Increase in water bill
Levels
Once every 5
Once every 25
Once every 50
Once every 100
years
years
years
years
Moderate
Good
Very Good
There is a limited
There is a good natural The water is in a very
variety of aquatic life range of fish and plant
near-natural state.
but far from natural.
species. All
Natural conditions are
Boating is OK but
recreational uses are
optimal for a full
water quality is still
possible, but swimming range of aquatic life.
too poor for
may be a little bit risky
All recreational uses
swimming. Fishing is
during certain time
such as swimming and
possible but not for
periods. Consumption
fishing are possible.
consumption.
of caught fish possible
without much risk for
human health.
€3
€ 10
€ 30
€ 50
Example choice card
Option A
Flood
frequency
Option B
Status Quo
Once every 25 Once every 25 Once every 5
years
years
years
Good
Very good
Moderate
€3
(25 Cent /
month)
€ 10
(83 Cent /
month)
No additional
payment
Water quality
Increase in
water bill
I choose:
(Please tick as Option A
appropriate)
Option B
Neither
Implementation of the surveys
• Austria: web-based survey 1977 respondents
Nov 2007, response 26% (n=506)
• Hungary: 892 face-to-face interviews
Nov-Jan 2008, response 53% (n=471)
• Romania: 850 face-to-face interviews
Nov 2007, response 61% (n=519)
Sample characteristics
Distribution (%)
Austria
Hungary
Romania
Share male
48
55
51
15-19 year
10
6
3
20-29
18
20
16
30-39
21
19
22
40-49
22
17
21
50-59
18
20
21
>=60
11
18
17
€0-500/month
8
29
68
€501-1000
13
46
25
€1001-2000
38
23
6
€2001-3000
24
1
1
> €3000
17
1
0
Water quality perception
Flood experience
Austria
Hungary
Romania
16%
19%
8%
RPL model results
Implicit prices
MWTP (€/household/yr)
Austria
Hungary
Romania
Δ flood frequency (year)
0.20
(0.05)
0
(n.s.)
0
(n.s.)
Δ good water quality
44.5
(6.5)
21.2
(3.1)
23.0
(10.7)
Δ very good water quality
75.3
(8.4)
42.5
(4.2)
36.8
(14.1)
Policy scenarios (€/household/year)
Policy scenario
Flooding
Austria
Hungary
Romania
Water quality
1 Once every 25 yrs
Good
69.6
(37.5-101.8)
20.2
(15.2-25.3)
4.8
(4.0-5.5)
2 Once every 50 yrs
Good
73.5
(40.8-106.2)
20.2
(15.2-25.3)
4.8
(4.0-5.5)
3 Once every 25 yrs
Very good
85.0
(50.2-119.8)
32.1
(26.3-37.9)
9.5
(6.8-12.2)
4 Once every 50 yrs
Very good
88.8
(53.4-124.2)
32.1
(26.3-37.9)
9.5
(6.8-12.2)
5 Once every 100 yrs
Very good
96.4
(59.6-133.3)
32.1
(26.3-37.9)
9.5
(6.8-12.2)
95% confidence intervals between brackets.
Conclusions
• Design of choice experiment – internationally
comparable survey
• Web-based survey
• Aggregation – transferability of values
– Distance-decay
– Income differentials
– Population
– Generally different estimated models & scale
parameters  benefit transfer doesn’t work in our
context
Thank you very much
for your attention!
Steps
1)
Conversion CS/household/year to per capita values
2)
Conversion population density to number of inhabitants per 100x100m grid cell
3)
CS/capita/year multiplied with number of inhabitants per 100x100m grid cell
4)
Income factor multiplied with the change in income per grid cell (+/-)
5)
Distance decay factor multiplied with the distance of each grid cell from the
Danube river (-)
6)
Summation income and distance adjusted TEV/grid cell across all grid cells
Aggregation procedure
• Spatial distribution population
• Distance-decay
• Income variation in space
• CS/household/year >> TEV relevant market size
Illustration of distance-decay
effects for good water quality in Austria
TEV for good and very good water
quality on two aggregation procedures
(€ 106/year)
TEV1
unadjusted aggregation
TEV2
GIS adjusted aggregation
Distance-decay
correction
Distance-decay
and income
correction
Austria
Good water quality
54.0
46.3
41.9
Very good water quality
73.8
n.a.
69.4a
good water quality
2.0
1.4
n.a.
Very good water quality
3.9
3.3
n.a.
Good water quality
10.2
5.0
4.4
Very good water quality
15.3
9.9
9.0
Hungary
Romania
a Income
correction only. n.a: not available
Illustration of TEV for very good
water quality adjusted for distance-decay / income