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

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Metcalfe, Paul en_US
dc.contributor.author Baker, William en_US
dc.contributor.author Andrews, Kevin en_US
dc.contributor.author Atkinson, Giles en_US
dc.contributor.author Bateman, Ian en_US
dc.contributor.author Butler, Sarah en_US
dc.contributor.author Carson, Richard en_US
dc.contributor.author East, Jo en_US
dc.contributor.author Gueron, Yves en_US
dc.contributor.author Sheldon, Rob en_US
dc.contributor.author Train, Kenneth en_US
dc.contributor.editor en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2014-04-03T01:22:42Z
dc.date.available 2014-04-03T01:22:42Z
dc.date.issued 2012 en_US
dc.identifier 2012000613 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Bateman, Ian et al. 2012, 'An assessment of the nonmarket benefits of the Water Framework Directive for households in England and Wales', Water resources research, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 1-18. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0043-1397 en_US
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 en_US
dc.language en_US
dc.publisher American Geophysical Union en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009592 en_US
dc.title An assessment of the nonmarket benefits of the Water Framework Directive for households in England and Wales en_US
dc.parent Water resources research en_US
dc.journal.volume 48 en_US
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 050200 en_US
dc.personcode 0000087441 en_US
dc.personcode 0000087442 en_US
dc.personcode 0000087443 en_US
dc.personcode 0000087444 en_US
dc.personcode 0000022454 en_US
dc.personcode 0000087446 en_US
dc.personcode 100722 en_US
dc.personcode 0000087447 en_US
dc.personcode 0000087448 en_US
dc.personcode 0000087449 en_US
dc.personcode 0000031037 en_US
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


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record