IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2014.68.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Flushing Flow Cost: A Prohibitive River Restoration Alternative? The Case of the Lower Ebro River

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos M. Gómez

    (University of Alcalá and Madrid Institute for Advanced Studies in Water Technologies (IMDEA-Water), Spain)

  • C. Dionisio Pérez-Blanco

    (University of Alcalá and Madrid Institute for Advanced Studies in Water Technologies (IMDEA-Water), Spain)

  • Ramon J. Batalla

    (University of Lleida, Forest Science Centre of Catalonia and Catalan Institute for Water Research, Girona, Spain)

Abstract

Although the effectiveness of flushing floods in restoring basic environmental functions in highly engineered rivers has been extensively tested, the opportunity cost is still considered to represent an important limitation to putting these actions into practice. In this paper, we present a two-stage method for the assessment of the opportunity cost of the periodical release of flushing flows in the lower reaches of rivers with regimes that are basically controlled by series of dams equipped with hydropower generation facilities. The methodology is applied to the Lower Ebro River in Spain. The results show that the cost of the reduced power generation resulting from the implementation of flushing floods is lower than the observed willingness to pay for river restoration programmes.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos M. Gómez & C. Dionisio Pérez-Blanco & Ramon J. Batalla, 2014. "The Flushing Flow Cost: A Prohibitive River Restoration Alternative? The Case of the Lower Ebro River," Working Papers 2014.68, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2014.68
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2014-068.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol L. & Ganderton, Philip & Brookshire, David, 1998. "A joint investigation of public support and public values: case of instream flows in New Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 189-203, November.
    2. 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.
    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. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    2. 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.
    3. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2002. "Willingness to Pay for Conservation of the Asian Elephant in Sri Lanka: A Contingent Valuation Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48738, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    4. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    5. Chopra, Vasudha & Das, Sukanya, 2019. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Wastewater Treatment in New Delhi: Contingent Valuation Approach," Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal, Indian Society of Ecological Economics (INSEE), vol. 2(02), July.
    6. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    8. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Kousky, Carolyn & Walls, Margaret, 2014. "Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: Examining costs and benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 119-128.
    10. Heagney, E.C. & Rose, J.M. & Ardeshiri, A. & Kovac, M., 2019. "The economic value of tourism and recreation across a large protected area network," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Neville D Crossman & Jeffrey D Connor & Brett A Bryan & David A Summers & John Ginnivan, 2009. "Reconfiguring an Irrigation Landscape to Improve Provision of Ecosystem Services," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-07, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    12. Yu Gan & Tao Xu & NengRui Xu & JiLv Xu & Dan Qiao, 2021. "How Environmental Awareness and Knowledge Affect Urban Residents’ Willingness to Participate in Rubber Plantation Ecological Restoration Programs: Evidence from Hainan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    13. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    14. Johnson, Kris A. & Dalzell, Brent J. & Donahue, Marie & Gourevitch, Jesse & Johnson, Dennis L. & Karlovits, Greg S. & Keeler, Bonnie & Smith, Jason T., 2016. "Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 175-185.
    15. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    16. Warziniack, Travis W. & Finnoff, David & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Public economics of hitchhiking species and tourism-based risk to ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 277-294.
    17. Zhaoyi Shang & Yue Che & Kai Yang & Yu Jiang, 2012. "Assessing Local Communities’ Willingness to Pay for River Network Protection: A Contingent Valuation Study of Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, October.
    18. Tumaneng-Diete, Tessie & Page, Ashley & Binney, Jim, 2005. "Assessing the economic values of exotic invasive plants on areas of conservation significance in Queensland," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 139287, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Richardson, Robert B., 2011. "Ecosystem Services and Food Security: Economic Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability," Food Security International Development Working Papers 98782, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    20. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    River Restoration; Flushing Flows; Opportunity Costs; Hydropower; Ebro River;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water

    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:fem:femwpa:2014.68. 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: Alberto Prina Cerai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.