Ecosystem Service Valuation from Floodplain Restoration in the Danube River Basin: An International Choice Experiment Application

Transcription

1 Ecosystem Service Valuation from Floodplain Restoration in the Danube River Basin: An International Choice Experiment Application Paper by M Bliem, R Brouwer, Z Flachner, M Getzner, S Kerekes, S Milton, T Palarie, Z Szerényi, A Vadineanu, A Wagtendonk Presented by M Getzner, Dept of Economics, Klagenfurt University, Austria EAERE Pre-conference on Water Economics 24 June 2009, Amsterdam, VU University

2 Presentation outline River restoration measures and benefits Common valuation design Estimated choice models Welfare measures Best practice recommendations

3 Danube river basin Second largest river in Europe (2850 km) Most river stretches classified as HMWB Lack of river connectivity, canalization, regulation, hydropower Ecological restoration important measure to reach GES Costly, benefits unknown

4

5

6

7

8 Main objectives Economic valuation of the non-market benefits of ecological floodplain restoration - Flood control - Water quality improvement - (other potential benefits, such as biodiversity conservation/dynamics and natural processes, not included) Transferability of benefits in international context: Austria, Hungary, Romania

9 Location of river restoration projects

10 Design of a choice experiment Description of river restoration Water supply and waste water treatment Experience with floods CE: Management alternatives and status quo (CV) Debriefing questions 10

11 Overview of attribute levels Attributes Levels Flood frequency Once every 5 years Once every 25 years Once every 50 years Once every 100 years Water quality Moderate There is a limited variety of aquatic life but far from natural. Boating is OK but water quality is still too poor for swimming. Fishing is possible but not for consumption. Good There is a good natural range of fish and plant species. All recreational uses are possible, but swimming may be a little bit risky during certain time periods. Consumption of caught fish possible without much risk for human health. Very Good The water is in a very near-natural state. Natural conditions are optimal for a full range of aquatic life. All recreational uses such as swimming and fishing are possible. Increase in water bill

12 Example choice card Option A Option B Status Quo Flood frequency Once every 25 years Once every 25 years Once every 5 years Good Very good Moderate Water quality Increase in water bill I choose: (Please tick as appropriate) 3 (25 Cent / month) 10 (83 Cent / month) No additional payment Option A Option B Neither

13 Implementation of the surveys Austria: web-based survey 1977 respondents Nov 2007, response 26% (n=506) Hungary: 892 face-to-face interviews Nov-Jan 2008, response 53% (n=471) Romania: 850 face-to-face interviews Nov 2007, response 61% (n=519)

14 Sample characteristics Distribution (%) Austria Hungary Romania Share male year >= /month >

15 Water quality perception

16 Flood experience Austria Hungary Romania 16% 19% 8%

17 RPL model results

18 Implicit prices MWTP ( /household/yr) Austria Hungary Romania Δ flood frequency (year) 0.20 (0.05) Δ good water quality 44.5 (6.5) Δ very good water quality 75.3 (8.4) 0 (n.s.) 21.2 (3.1) 42.5 (4.2) 0 (n.s.) 23.0 (10.7) 36.8 (14.1)

19 Policy scenarios ( /household/year) Flooding Policy scenario Austria Hungary Romania Water quality 1 Once every 25 yrs Good 69.6 ( ) 2 Once every 50 yrs Good 73.5 ( ) 3 Once every 25 yrs Very good 85.0 ( ) 4 Once every 50 yrs Very good 88.8 ( ) 5 Once every 100 yrs Very good 96.4 ( ) 95% confidence intervals between brackets ( ) 20.2 ( ) 32.1 ( ) 32.1 ( ) 32.1 ( ) 4.8 ( ) 4.8 ( ) 9.5 ( ) 9.5 ( ) 9.5 ( )

20 Conclusions Design of choice experiment internationally comparable survey Web-based survey Aggregation transferability of values Distance-decay Income differentials Population Generally different estimated models & scale parameters benefit transfer doesn t work in our context

21 Thank you very much for your attention!

22 Steps 1) Conversion CS/household/year to per capita values 2) Conversion population density to number of inhabitants per 100x100m grid cell 3) CS/capita/year multiplied with number of inhabitants per 100x100m grid cell 4) Income factor multiplied with the change in income per grid cell (+/-) 5) Distance decay factor multiplied with the distance of each grid cell from the Danube river (-) 6) Summation income and distance adjusted TEV/grid cell across all grid cells

23 Aggregation procedure Spatial distribution population Distance-decay Income variation in space CS/household/year >> TEV relevant market size

24 Illustration of distance-decay effects for good water quality in Austria

25 TEV for good and very good water quality on two aggregation procedures ( 10 6 /year) TEV 1 unadjusted aggregation TEV 2 GIS adjusted aggregation Distance-decay correction Distance-decay and income correction Austria Good water quality Very good water quality 73.8 n.a a Hungary good water quality n.a. Very good water quality n.a. Romania Good water quality Very good water quality a Income correction only. n.a: not available

26 Illustration of TEV for very good water quality adjusted for distance-decay / income