IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/teepxx/v2y2013i2p201-221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-makers' attitudes towards economic valuation - a case study of German water management authorities

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Dehnhardt

Abstract

The EC Water Framework Directive and more explicitly the EC Marine Strategy Framework Directive has brought new requirements of integrating economic approaches into policy-making. The primary aim of the study is to gain a greater insight into the factors that might influence the use and acceptance of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and economic valuation in water policy-making. In this context, particularly, attitudes towards economic valuation have been established as an explanatory factor. The paper presents results of an empirical survey among decision-makers in German water authorities. The study confirms that water-related decisions in Germany are still based primarily on budget costs, but also indicates a rather positive attitude towards economic valuation. The results suggest that conceptual issues are considered as most important, whereas resource constraints are not predominantly regarded as important obstacles for the application of CBA in the administrative context. Furthermore, an exploratory factor analysis derived three 'latent' variables that are related to (i) the usefulness of CBA as a decision-support tool, (ii) the administrative feasibility, and (iii) the policy-makers' goals and interest potentially affected by the use of CBA. The results of an OLS regression model suggest that particularly the institutional affiliation has a significant influence on the attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Dehnhardt, 2013. "Decision-makers' attitudes towards economic valuation - a case study of German water management authorities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 201-221, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:teepxx:v:2:y:2013:i:2:p:201-221
    DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2013.766483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21606544.2013.766483
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21606544.2013.766483?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. Lago, Manuel & Moran, Dominic & MacLeod, Michael J., 2006. "Exploring the meaning of disproportionate costs for the practical implementation of the Water Framework Directive," Working Papers 46005, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    2. Bathe, Frauke, 2010. "Die Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland: Eine vergleichende Analyse der Entwürfe der Bewirtschaftungspläne," UFZ Reports 01/2010, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ).
    3. 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. Abbie A. Rogers & Marit E. Kragt & Fiona L. Gibson & Michael P. Burton & Elizabeth H. Petersen & David J. Pannell, 2015. "Non-market valuation: usage and impacts in environmental policy and management in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    3. Johnson, Daniel & Geisendorf, Sylvie, 2019. "Are Neighborhood-level SUDS Worth it? An Assessment of the Economic Value of Sustainable Urban Drainage System Scenarios Using Cost-Benefit Analyses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 194-205.
    4. Rogers, A. & Kragt, Marit Ellen & Gibson, F. & Pannell, David J. & Burton, Michael P. & Petersen, L., 2013. "Is non-market valuation used in environmental policy making?," Working Papers 156197, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Ram Prasad Acharya & Tek Narayan Maraseni & Geoff Cockfield, 2020. "An Ecosystem Services Valuation Research Framework for Policy Integration in Developing Countries: A Case Study from Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-15, October.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    13. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    14. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Andy Choi & Franco Papandrea & Jeff Bennett, 2007. "Assessing cultural values: developing an attitudinal scale," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 31(4), pages 311-335, December.
    16. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    17. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    18. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    20. Gürlük, Serkan & Ward, Frank A., 2009. "Integrated basin management: Water and food policy options for Turkey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2666-2678, August.

    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:teepxx:v:2:y:2013:i:2:p:201-221. 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/teep20 .

    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.