IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v34y2020i1d10.1007_s11269-019-02430-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Priorities and Preferences in Water Quality Management - a Case Study of the Alsterån River Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Kristina Ek

    (Luleå University of Technology, Economics Unit)

  • Lars Persson

    (Umeå University)

Abstract

Sweden is a decentralised country where local managers, who are key actors in water management, often deal with relatively difficult prioritisations, tradeoffs and conflicting goals. Many of these challenges relate to the effective implementation of the European Union Water Framework Directive. As an input to these challenges, the present paper elicits and analyses local and semi-local citizens’ preferences for water quality attributes related to the European Water Framework directive in a river basin located in southeast of Sweden. Based on a choice experiment tailored to the case study area, the paper analyses preferences for selected attributes based on real criteria for ecological water status in the implementation of the directive. The target population lives in the municipalities through which the river passes, or in municipalities neighbouring those. Despite this spatial proximity to the river, the analysis reveals limited knowledge and interest in matters related to the environmental quality of the river. There is no evidence that preferences differ between respondents with regard to experience or knowledge about the water basin, nor with regard to recreational habits in the area. These results offer input to local water management by providing information about preferences for explicit water quality attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristina Ek & Lars Persson, 2020. "Priorities and Preferences in Water Quality Management - a Case Study of the Alsterån River Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(1), pages 155-173, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:34:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11269-019-02430-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-019-02430-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-019-02430-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-019-02430-5?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. Ek, Kristina & Persson, Lars, 2014. "Wind farms — Where and how to place them? A choice experiment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm establishments in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 193-203.
    2. Michael P. McGonagle & Stephen K. Swallow, 2005. "Open Space and Public Access: A Contingent Choice Application to Coastal Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(4).
    3. Ekin Birol & Katia Karousakis & Phoebe Koundouri, 2006. "Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application," DEOS Working Papers 0607, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    4. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1628-1637, July.
    5. Anton Paulrud & Thomas Laitila, 2013. "A cost-benefit analysis of restoring the Em River in Sweden: valuation of angling site characteristics and visitation frequency," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(16), pages 2255-2266, June.
    6. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Eric T. Schultz & Kathleen Segerson & Elena Y. Besedin & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2012. "Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(1), pages 102-120.
    9. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    10. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    11. Virpi Lehtoranta & Anna-Kaisa Kosenius & Elina Seppälä, 2017. "Watershed Management Benefits in a Hypothetical, Real Intention and Real Willingness to Pay Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(13), pages 4117-4132, October.
    12. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    13. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.
    14. Klauer, Bernd & Sigel, Katja & Schiller, Johannes, 2016. "Disproportionate costs in the EU Water Framework Directive—How to justify less stringent environmental objectives," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 10-17.
    15. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    16. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Markku, Ollikainen, 2015. "Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats—A three-country choice experiment," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-27.
    17. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2009. "Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 201-206, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yizhong Chen & Hongwei Lu & Jing Li & Pengdong Yan & He Peng, 2021. "Multi-Level Decision-Making for Inter-Regional Water Resources Management with Water Footprint Analysis and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(2), pages 481-503, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Imran Khan & Hongdou Lei & Gaffar Ali & Shahid Ali & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Public Attitudes, Preferences and Willingness to Pay for River Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Robert Johnston & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2014. "Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 363-387, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, April.
    8. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    9. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    10. Renato Perez Loyola & Erda Wang & Nannan Kang, 2021. "Economic valuation of recreational attributes using a choice experiment approach: An application to the Galapagos Islands," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 86-104, February.
    11. Gong, Yazhen & Bi, Xiang & Wu, Jian, 2020. "Willingness to pay for the conservation of the endangered Red-crowned Crane in China: Roles of conservation attitudes and income," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    12. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Newburn, David & Towe, Charles A., 2018. "Household Willingness to Pay for Stream Restoration on Private and Public Lands: Evidence from the Baltimore Metropolitan Region," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274031, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Park, Dojin, 2021. "The Valuation of Soil Health Improvements and Ecosystem Services among Crop Producers in the U.S," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 314032, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Wainger, L. & Loomis, J. & Johnston, R. & Hansen, L. & Carlisle, D. & Lawrence, D. & Gollehon, N. & Duriancik, L. & Schwartz, G. & Ribaudo, M. & Gala, C., 2017. "Ecosystem Service Benefits Generated by Improved Water Quality from Conservation Practices," C-FARE Reports 260679, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE).
    15. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    16. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    17. Christie, Michael & Remoundou, Kyriaki & Siwicka, Ewa & Wainwright, Warwick, 2015. "Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem service benefits: Case study of St Vincent and the Grenadines’ proposed marine protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 115-127.
    18. Abdulrahman, Abdulallah S & Johnston, Robert J, 2016. "Systematic Non-Response in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: Implications for the Valuation of Climate Risk Reductions," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235465, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Broberg, Thomas & Persson, Lars, 2016. "Is our everyday comfort for sale? Preferences for demand management on the electricity market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 24-32.
    20. 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).

    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:spr:waterr:v:34:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11269-019-02430-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.