IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00934930.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Daniel Rinaudo

    (BRGM - Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières)

  • Stéphanie Aulong

    (BRGM - Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières)

Abstract

The use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is increasingly advocated as a tool for supporting water planning decisions, in particular at the local (site) level. This paper questions whether CBA is relevant for evaluating groundwater management options at the scale of large regional aquifers. It highlights the difficulties related to estimating the cost of groundwater protection and remediation measures at the regional (water body) level. It also identifies methodological challenges in estimating the economic value of the benefits of groundwater protection. The paper is based on an original case study carried out on the upper Rhine valley aquifer in eastern France. The methodology deployed combines engineering approaches to assess the cost of remediation and economic methods (contingent valuation) to estimate the benefits associated with groundwater improvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Stéphanie Aulong, 2014. "Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?," Post-Print hal-00934930, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00934930
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-013-0483-0
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00934930
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00934930/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-013-0483-0?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    2. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    3. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    4. Rozan, A. & Stenger, A. & Willinger, M., 1997. "Valeur de préservation de la qualité de l'eau souterraine : une comparaison entre usagers et non-usagers," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 45.
    5. Edwards, Steven F., 1988. "Option prices for groundwater protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 475-487, December.
    6. John C. Bergstrom & Kevin J. Boyle & Gregory L. Poe (ed.), 2001. "The Economic Value of Water Quality," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1723.
    7. Charles W. Abdalla, 1994. "Groundwater Values from Avoidance Cost Studies: Implications for Policy and Future Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1062-1067.
    8. Roy Brouwer, 2008. "The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 597-614.
    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. Joaquin Ameller & Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Corinne Merly, 2020. "The contribution of economic science to brownfield redevelopment: a review," Post-Print hal-02532209, HAL.
    2. Philippe Coent, 2023. "Payment for environmental services related to aquifers: a review of specific issues and existing programmes," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 273-310, December.
    3. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    4. Corentin Girard & Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Manuel Pulido-Velazquez, 2015. "Index-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis vs. Least-Cost River Basin Optimization Model: Comparison in the Selection of a Programme of Measures at the River Basin Scale," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(11), pages 4129-4155, September.
    5. Koo, A Mi & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Household willingness to pay for a smart water metering and monitoring system: The case of South Korea," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(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. J.-D. Rinaudo & S. Aulong, 2014. "Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(1), pages 261-278, January.
    2. Cathal Buckley & Peter Howley & Cathal O'Donoghue & Paul Kilgarriff, 2016. "Willingness to Pay For Achieving Good Status Across Rivers in the Republic of Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 47(3), pages 425-445.
    3. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    6. Lehrer, David & Becker, Nir & Bar, Pua, 2010. "The economic impact of the invasion of Acacia saligna in Israel," MPRA Paper 33954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Mohamed, Shukri F. & Otieno, Peter & Wambiya, Elvis & Mutua, Martin Kavao & Danaei, Goodarz, 2020. "Economic valuation of setting up a social health enterprise in urban poor-resource setting in Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    8. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. Brander, Luke M. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Kuik, Onno & Markandya, Anil & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Schaafsma, Marije & Wagtendonk, Alfred, 2010. "Scaling up Ecosystem Services Values: Methodology, Applicability and a Case Study," Sustainable Development Papers 60689, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Wolfson, Dirk J., 2014. "Who gets what in environmental policy?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 8-14.
    11. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    12. Collins, Alan R. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2007. "Protest Adjustments in the Valuation of Watershed Restoration Using Payment Card Data," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-15, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Callan, Aoife & O'Shea, Eamon, 2015. "Willingness to pay for telecare programmes to support independent living: Results from a contingent valuation study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 94-102.
    15. Marije Schaafsma & Roy Brouwer, 2020. "Substitution Effects in Spatial Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 323-349, February.
    16. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    17. Perez-Verdin, Gustavo & Sanjurjo-Rivera, Enrique & Galicia, Leopoldo & Hernandez-Diaz, Jose Ciro & Hernandez-Trejo, Victor & Marquez-Linares, Marco Antonio, 2016. "Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Mexico: Current status and trends," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 6-19.
    18. John C. Whitehead & George Van Houtven, "undated". "Methods for Valuing the Benefits of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Review and Assessment," Working Papers 9705, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    19. van der Heide, C. Martijn & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & van Ierland, Ekko C. & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2008. "Economic valuation of habitat defragmentation: A study of the Veluwe, the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 205-216, September.
    20. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-benefit analysis; Groundwater remediation; Contingent valuation survey; Volatile organic compounds (VOC); Willingness to pay;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-00934930. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.