An assessment of the nonmarket benefits of the Water Framework Directive for households in England and Wales

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Search OPUS


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Metcalfe, PJ
dc.contributor.author Baker, W
dc.contributor.author Andrews, K
dc.contributor.author Atkinson, G
dc.contributor.author Bateman, I
dc.contributor.author Butler, S
dc.contributor.author Carson, R
dc.contributor.author East, J
dc.contributor.author Gueron, Y
dc.contributor.author Sheldon, R
dc.contributor.author Train, K
dc.date.accessioned 2014-04-03T01:22:42Z
dc.date.issued 2012-01
dc.identifier.citation Water resources research, 2012, 48 (3), pp. 1 - 18
dc.identifier.issn 0043-1397
dc.identifier.other C1UNSUBMIT en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/22799
dc.description.abstract Results are presented from a large scale stated preference study designed to estimate the non-market benefits for households in England and Wales arising from the European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD). Multiple elicitation methods (a discrete choice experiment and two forms of contingent valuation) are employed, with the order in which they are asked randomly varied across respondents, to obtain a robust model for valuing specified WFD implementation programs applied to all the lakes, reservoirs, rivers, canals, transitional and coastal waters of England and Wales. The potential for subsequent policy incorporation and value transfer was enhanced by generating area based values. These were found to vary from £2,263 to £39,168 per km2 depending on the population density around the location of the improvement, the ecological scope of that improvement, and the value elicitation method employed. While the former factors are consistent with expectations, the latter suggests that decision makers need to be aware of such methodological effects when employing derived values
dc.publisher American Geophysical Union
dc.relation.isbasedon 10.1029/2010WR009592
dc.title An assessment of the nonmarket benefits of the Water Framework Directive for households in England and Wales
dc.type Journal Article
dc.parent Water resources research
dc.journal.volume 3
dc.journal.volume 48
dc.journal.number 3 en_US
dc.publocation United States en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 1 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 18 en_US
dc.cauo.name BUS.Centre for the Study of Choice en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 0502 Environmental Science and Management
dc.personcode 100722
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Environmental Science and Management en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition en_US
dc.custom en_US
dc.date.activity en_US
dc.location.activity en_US
dc.description.keywords Contingent Valuation, Stated Preference, Willingness to Pay, Water, Utilities, Regulation en_US
dc.description.keywords Termsâ(d, Ï )-quick path, minimal path (MP), multistate flow network (MFN), network reliability, universal generating function method (UGFM).
pubs.embargo.period Not known
pubs.organisational-group /University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group /University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group /University of Technology Sydney/Strength - Study of Choice
utslib.copyright.status Closed Access
utslib.copyright.date 2015-04-15 12:17:09.805752+10
utslib.collection.history Closed (ID: 3)


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record