IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v181y2021ics0921800920315007.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to choose? A bioeconomic model for optimizing river barrier mitigation actions

Author

Listed:
  • King, Steven
  • O'Hanley, Jesse R.
  • Fraser, Iain

Abstract

River infrastructure can cause adverse impacts on fish populations, which, in turn, compromises the ability of river ecosystems to provide a range of ecosystem services. In this paper, we present a methodological approach to assess the potential economics costs and benefits of river connectivity enhancement achieved through removal and mitigation of fish dispersal barriers. Our approach combines the results of a stated preference study for nonuse values of rivers and statistical models of fish population responses to barrier mitigation actions within an integrated bioeconomic optimization framework. We demonstrate the utility of our methodology using a case study of the River Wey catchment in southeast England, which contains over 650 artificial barriers. Our results reveal the presence of benefit-cost trade-offs which can form the basis for river barrier mitigation policy development. In particular, we find that benefits exceed costs in the River Wey for all levels of investment in barrier mitigation considered (£2.5 to 53.4 M). Furthermore, from an economic efficiency standpoint, a total budget of approximately £22.5M allocated to barrier mitigation would maximize net societal benefits derived from anticipated increases fish species richness and abundance.

Suggested Citation

  • King, Steven & O'Hanley, Jesse R. & Fraser, Iain, 2021. "How to choose? A bioeconomic model for optimizing river barrier mitigation actions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:181:y:2021:i:c:s0921800920315007
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800920315007
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106892?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julio Berbel & Alfonso Expósito, 2018. "Economic challenges for the EU Water Framework Directive reform and implementation," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 20-34, January.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Randall S. Rosenberger, 2010. "Methods, Trends And Controversies In Contemporary Benefit Transfer," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 479-510, July.
    3. Kunwar, Samrat B. & Bohara, Alok K. & Thacher, Jennifer, 2020. "Public preference for river restoration in the Danda Basin, Nepal: A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    4. Abigail J. Lynch & Vittoria Elliott & Sui C. Phang & Julie E. Claussen & Ian Harrison & Karen J. Murchie & E. Ashley Steel & Gretchen L. Stokes, 2020. "Inland fish and fisheries integral to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(8), pages 579-587, August.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    6. Michele Baggio & Charles Towe & Daniel Trüssel & Armin Peter, 2020. "Evaluating the Effects of River and Stream Restorations: Evidence from Recreational Fishing," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 75-91.
    7. Gopal, Brij, 2016. "A conceptual framework for environmental flows assessment based on ecosystem services and their economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 53-58.
    8. Holmlund, Cecilia M. & Hammer, Monica, 1999. "Ecosystem services generated by fish populations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 253-268, May.
    9. O’Hanley, Jesse R. & Scaparra, M. Paola & García, Sergio, 2013. "Probability chains: A general linearization technique for modeling reliability in facility location and related problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(1), pages 63-75.
    10. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    11. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 89-97.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas G Poder & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Fetue Ndefo & Jie He, 2016. "The Economic Value of the Greater Montreal Blue Network (Quebec, Canada): A Contingent Choice Study Using Real Projects to Estimate Non-Market Aquatic Ecosystem Services Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    3. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    4. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Massei, G. & Fagioli, F.F. & Antegiovanni, P. & Boggia, A., 2019. "Provision of ecosystem services from the management of Natura 2000 sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the costs and benefits, using choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 13-20.
    5. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Estimating the Benefits of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Atlantic Member States: A Spatial Value Transfer Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 82-94.
    7. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    8. Börger, Tobias & Beaumont, Nicola J. & Pendleton, Linwood & Boyle, Kevin J. & Cooper, Philip & Fletcher, Stephen & Haab, Tim & Hanemann, Michael & Hooper, Tara L. & Hussain, S. Salman & Portela, Rosim, 2014. "Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 161-170.
    9. Johnston, Robert J. & Segerson, Kathleen & Schultz, Eric T. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2011. "Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1946-1956, September.
    10. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Wilker, Jost & Rusche, Karsten & Benning, Alexander & MacDonald, Michael A. & Blaen, Phillip, 2016. "Applying ecosystem benefit valuation to inform quarry restoration planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 44-55.
    12. Deely, John & Hynes, Stephen, 2020. "Preferences for Blue-Green or Grey Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risk: A Choice Experiment," Working Papers 309506, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    13. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    14. Federico Pontoni & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Stefania Troiano, 2016. "Choice experiments and environmental taxation: An application to the Italian hydropower sector," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(3), pages 99-118.
    15. Nijhum, Farzana & Westbrook, Cherie & Noble, Bram & Belcher, Ken & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick, 2021. "Evaluation of alternative land-use scenarios using an ecosystem services-based strategic environmental assessment approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    16. Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Benefit Transfer and Commodity Measurement Scales: Consequences for Validity and Reliability," Working Papers 2018-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    18. John Robinson, Peter & van Beukering, Pieter & Brander, Luke & Brouwer, Roy & Haider, W. & Taylor, Michael & Mau, Paulus, 2022. "Understanding the determinants of biodiversity non-use values in the context of climate change: Stated preferences for the Hawaiian coral reefs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    19. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2015. "Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Kim, Hyerin & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Aikoh, Tetsuya & Kuriyama, Koichi, 2020. "Understanding services from ecosystem and facilities provided by urban green spaces: A use of partial profile choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:181:y:2021:i:c:s0921800920315007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.