IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eurpls/v21y2013i2p131-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Programme of Measures for Coastal Lagoon Environmental Restoration Using Cost--Benefit Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jose M. Martínez-Paz
  • Angel Perni
  • Federico Martínez-Carrasco

Abstract

The degradation of marine and coastal ecosystems has given rise to the creation of specific protection rules. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive are the standards agreed in the European Union with the aim of obtaining a good ecological status in marine and coastal waters by applying a programme of measures, if necessary. These measures must be technical, social and economically feasible, in such a way that costs do not exceed benefits. This work expounds the implementation of two economic tools to assess the programme of measures intended for the environmental restoration of one of the most important coastal ecosystems in Europe, the Mar Menor coastal lagoon (SE Spain). Thus, the cost--benefit analysis (CBA) (and its extensions) and the contingent valuation method are used to assess the aforementioned programme in terms of economic and environmental profitability. Results prove the socioeconomic and environmental profitability of the actions due to be undertaken, with rates of return of around 10%. From a methodological point of view, there is a clear need to widen the classic CBA scheme by using the extended CBA and the dual CBA to gauge this type of environmental restoration actions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose M. Martínez-Paz & Angel Perni & Federico Martínez-Carrasco, 2013. "Assessment of the Programme of Measures for Coastal Lagoon Environmental Restoration Using Cost--Benefit Analysis," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 131-148, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:21:y:2013:i:2:p:131-148
    DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09654313.2012.722923
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09654313.2012.722923?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. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    2. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    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. Martínez-Paz, José Miguel & Banos-González, Isabel & Martínez-Fernández, Julia & Esteve-Selma, Miguel Ángel, 2019. "Assessment of management measures for the conservation of traditional irrigated lands: The case of the Huerta of Murcia (Spain)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 382-391.
    2. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2020. "When policy implementation failures affect public preferences for environmental goods: Implications for economic analysis in the European water policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    4. Francisco Alcon & Julia Martin-Ortega & Francisco Pedrero & Juan Alarcon & M. Miguel, 2013. "Incorporating Non-market Benefits of Reclaimed Water into Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Case Study of Irrigated Mandarin Crops in southern Spain," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(6), pages 1809-1820, April.
    5. Noelia Guaita-García & Julia Martínez-Fernández & Carlos Javier Barrera-Causil & Miguel Ángel Esteve-Selma & H. Carl Fitz, 2021. "Local perceptions regarding a social–ecological system of the mediterranean coast: the Mar Menor (Región de Murcia, Spain)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2882-2909, February.
    6. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "Assessment of social demand heterogeneity to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Martínez-Paz, José M. & Albaladejo-García, José A. & Barreiro-Hurle, Jesús & Pleite, Federico Martínez-Carrasco & Perni, Ángel, 2021. "Spatial effects in the socioeconomic valuation of peri-urban ecosystems restoration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    8. Alcon, Francisco & de-Miguel, María Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Assessment of real and perceived cost-effectiveness to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    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. Gurluk, Serkan, 2006. "The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 209-218, December.
    2. Clive L Spash, 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    3. Bakti Hasan-Basri & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim & Normizan Bakar, 2015. "Willingness To Pay For Recreational Attributes Of Public Parks: A Choice Experiment Approach," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    5. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    6. Star, Megan & Rolfe, John & Brown, Julia, 2020. "From farm to fork: Is food tourism a sustainable form of economic development?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 325-334.
    7. Sabah Abdulla & P W Jeanty, 2009. "Demand for Electricity Connection in Rural Areas: The Case of Kenya," Department of Economics Working Papers 26/09, University of Bath, Department of Economics.
    8. Leo Dobes & Jeff Bennett, 2009. "Multi-Criteria Analysis: "Good Enough" for Government Work?," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 16(3), pages 7-30.
    9. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & Mafalda Soeiro, 2013. "Determinants Of Students' Willingness To Pay For Violent Crime Reduction," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 58(04), pages 1-34.
    10. Sabah Abdullah & Randall S. Rosenberger, 2012. "Controlling for Biases in Primary Valuation Studies: A Meta-analysis of International Coral Reef Values," Working Papers 2012.72, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    12. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    13. Björn Vollan & Karla Henning & Deniza Staewa, 2017. "Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 500-518, October.
    14. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    15. Carol Vargas & Ramón Rosales, 2006. "Valoración Económica De La Prevención Pública De La Malaria En Los Hogares Del Caquetá," Documentos CEDE 3749, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    16. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    17. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2014. "Valuing environmental quality in actual travel time savings – The Haningeleden road project in Stockholm," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 349-356.
    18. Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Tyurina, Elena & Nagapetyan, Artur, 2022. "The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    19. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    20. Shokhrukh-Mirzo Jalilov, 2017. "Value of Clean Water Resources: Estimating the Water Quality Improvement in Metro Manila, Philippines," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:eurpls:v:21:y:2013:i:2:p:131-148. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEPS20 .

    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.