- -

Too expensive to be worth it? A methodology to identify disproportionate costs of environmental measures as applied to the Middle Tagus River, Spain

RiuNet: Institutional repository of the Polithecnic University of Valencia

Share/Send to

Cited by

Statistics

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Too expensive to be worth it? A methodology to identify disproportionate costs of environmental measures as applied to the Middle Tagus River, Spain

Show full item record

Bolinches, A.; De Stefano, L.; Paredes Arquiola, J. (2020). Too expensive to be worth it? A methodology to identify disproportionate costs of environmental measures as applied to the Middle Tagus River, Spain. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 63(13):2402-2424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1726731

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/151097

Files in this item

Item Metadata

Title: Too expensive to be worth it? A methodology to identify disproportionate costs of environmental measures as applied to the Middle Tagus River, Spain
Author: Bolinches, Antonio De Stefano, Lucia Paredes Arquiola, Javier
UPV Unit: Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Ingeniería Hidráulica y Medio Ambiente - Departament d'Enginyeria Hidràulica i Medi Ambient
Issued date:
Abstract:
[EN] The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) established in 2000 that EU Member States should achieve good status for all their water bodies by 2027 at the latest. The competent authorities are obliged to ...[+]
Subjects: Water Framework Directive , Disproportionate costs , Less stringent objectives , Tagus
Copyrigths: Cerrado
Source:
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. (issn: 0964-0568 )
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2020.1726731
Publisher:
Taylor & Francis
Publisher version: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1726731
Thanks:
The authors wish to thank the Tagus River Basin Authority (Confederación Hidrográfica del Tajo) for their availability and readiness to share information, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive ...[+]
Type: Artículo

References

Almansa, C., & Martínez-Paz, J. M. (2011). What weight should be assigned to future environmental impacts? A probabilistic cost benefit analysis using recent advances on discounting. Science of The Total Environment, 409(7), 1305-1314. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.004

Berbel, J., & Expósito, A. (2017). Economic challenges for the EU Water Framework Directive reform and implementation. European Planning Studies, 26(1), 20-34. doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1364353

Boeuf, B., Fritsch, O., & Martin-Ortega, J. (2016). Undermining European Environmental Policy Goals? The EU Water Framework Directive and the Politics of Exemptions. Water, 8(9), 388. doi:10.3390/w8090388 [+]
Almansa, C., & Martínez-Paz, J. M. (2011). What weight should be assigned to future environmental impacts? A probabilistic cost benefit analysis using recent advances on discounting. Science of The Total Environment, 409(7), 1305-1314. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.004

Berbel, J., & Expósito, A. (2017). Economic challenges for the EU Water Framework Directive reform and implementation. European Planning Studies, 26(1), 20-34. doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1364353

Boeuf, B., Fritsch, O., & Martin-Ortega, J. (2016). Undermining European Environmental Policy Goals? The EU Water Framework Directive and the Politics of Exemptions. Water, 8(9), 388. doi:10.3390/w8090388

Bolinches, A., De Stefano, L., & Paredes-Arquiola, J. (2020). Designing river water quality policy interventions with scarce data: the case of the Middle Tagus Basin, Spain. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 65(5), 749-762. doi:10.1080/02626667.2019.1708915

Brouwer, R. (2008). The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(5), 597-614. doi:10.1080/09640560802207860

CHG Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadiana. 2015. “Anejo 12 Del Plan Hidrológico. Objetivos Medioambientales y Exenciones.” http://planhidrologico2015.chguadiana.es/corps/planhidrologico2015/data/resources/file/documentos2015/definitivos/segundaetapa/RPH_14_1Rev-T2-Ane12_OMAs_vf.pdf.

CHT Confederación Hidrografica del Tajo. 2018a. “Memoria de Documentos Iniciales: Programa, Calendario, Estudio General Sobre La Demarcación y Fórmulas de Consulta. Plan Hidrológico de La Demarcación Hidrográfica Del Tajo Revisión de Tercer Ciclo (2021-2027).” http://www.chtajo.es/LaCuenca/Planes/PlanHidrologico/Planif_2021-2027/Documents/Doc_Iniciales/20181019_DocumentosinicialesTERCERcicloMEMORIA.pdf.

CHT Confederación Hidrografica del Tajo. 2018b. “Resultados/Informes: Aguas Superficiales - Control Fisicoquímico.” 2018. http://www.chtajo.es/LaCuenca/CalidadAgua/Resultados_Informes/Paginas/RISupFisicoQuímico.aspx.

Courtecuisse, Arnaud. 2005. “Water Prices and Households’ Available Income: Key Indicators for the Assessment of Potential Disproportionate Costs-Illustration from the Artois-Picardie Basin (France).” Paper presented at the IWG-Env International Work Session on Water Statistics. Vienna, June 20-22. http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/environment/envpdf/pap_wasess5b3france.pdf

European Commission. 2008. Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects. Luxembourg: EC.

European Commission. 2009. Guidance Document No. 20, on Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives. Luxembourg: EC.

European Commission. 2010. “Compliance Costs of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive.” http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/info/pdf/Cost of UWWTD-Final report_2010.pdf.

European Commission. 2019. “SWD(2019) 30 Final. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview: River Basin Management Plans.” Brussels: EC. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:30:FIN&qid=1551267381862&from=EN.

European Environment Agency. 2019a. “Natura 2000 Data: The European Network of Protected Sites.” 2019. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-10#tab-gis-data.

European Environment Agency. 2019b. “WISE WFD Database (Water Framework Directive Database).” 2019. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/wise-wfd-3.

European Parliament and Council. 2000. “Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy.” OJ, no. L 327: 2014–7001. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02000L0060-20141120&from=EN.

European Water Directors. 2016. “WFD Reporting Guidance 2016.” http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/WFD/WFD_521_2016/Guidance/WFD_ReportingGuidance.pdf.

European Water Directors. 2019. The Future of the Water Framework Directive (WFD): Water Directors Input to the Fitness Check Process on Experiences and Challenges of WFD’s Implementation and Options for the Way Forward. Brussels: European Water Directors.

Eurostat. 2019. “Database: Eurostat.” 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/environment/environmental-protection-expenditure/database.

Feld, C. K., Segurado, P., & Gutiérrez-Cánovas, C. (2016). Analysing the impact of multiple stressors in aquatic biomonitoring data: A ‘cookbook’ with applications in R. Science of The Total Environment, 573, 1320-1339. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.243

Galioto, F., Marconi, V., Raggi, M., & Viaggi, D. (2013). An Assessment of Disproportionate Costs in WFD: The Experience of Emilia-Romagna. Water, 5(4), 1967-1995. doi:10.3390/w5041967

Görlach, By Benjamin, and Britta Pielen. 2007. “Disproportionate Costs in the EC Water Framework Directive: The Concept and Its Practical Implementation.” Paper presented at the Environmental Economics Conference, London, March 23, 2007.

Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L., Elliott, M., Feld, C. K., … Pont, D. (2010). The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: A critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Science of The Total Environment, 408(19), 4007-4019. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.031

Hernández-Sancho, F., Molinos-Senante, M., & Sala-Garrido, R. (2010). Economic valuation of environmental benefits from wastewater treatment processes: An empirical approach for Spain. Science of The Total Environment, 408(4), 953-957. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.028

INE Instituto Nacional de Estadística. 2018a. “Cifras Oficiales de Población Resultantes de La Revisión Del Padrón Municipal.” 2018. https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=2881&L=0.

INE Instituto Nacional de Estadística. 2018b. “Survey on Water Supply and Sewerage.” 2018. http://www.ine.es/dynt3/inebase/index.htm?type=pcaxis&path=/t26/p069/p03/serie&file=pcaxis&L=1.

Jähnig, S. C., Brabec, K., Buffagni, A., Erba, S., Lorenz, A. W., Ofenböck, T., … Hering, D. (2010). A comparative analysis of restoration measures and their effects on hydromorphology and benthic invertebrates in 26 central and southern European rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(3), 671-680. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01807.x

Jensen, C. L., Jacobsen, B. H., Olsen, S. B., Dubgaard, A., & Hasler, B. (2013). A practical CBA-based screening procedure for identification of river basins where the costs of fulfilling the WFD requirements may be disproportionate – applied to the case of Denmark. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2), 164-200. doi:10.1080/21606544.2013.785676

Klauer, B., Sigel, K., & Schiller, J. (2016). Disproportionate costs in the EU Water Framework Directive—How to justify less stringent environmental objectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 59, 10-17. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.017

Macháč, J., & Brabec, J. (2017). Assessment of Disproportionate Costs According to the WFD: Comparison of Applications of two Approaches in the Catchment of the Stanovice Reservoir (Czech Republic). Water Resources Management, 32(4), 1453-1466. doi:10.1007/s11269-017-1879-z

Martin-Ortega, J., Skuras, D., Perni, A., Holen, S., & Psaltopoulos, D. (2014). The Disproportionality Principle in the WFD: How to Actually Apply it? Economics of Water Management in Agriculture, 214-256. doi:10.1201/b17309-14

Molinos-Senante, M., Hernández-Sancho, F., & Sala-Garrido, R. (2010). Economic feasibility study for wastewater treatment: A cost–benefit analysis. Science of The Total Environment, 408(20), 4396-4402. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.014

OECD. 2009. Managing Water for All: An OECD Perspective on Pricing. Paris: OECD.

PALMER, M. A., MENNINGER, H. L., & BERNHARDT, E. (2010). River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology, 55, 205-222. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x

Renno, J., and B. Klauer. 2018. “EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Eine Vertiefte Analyse Der Beiden Leipziger Ansätze Zur Begründung von Ausnahmen Mit Der Unverhältnismäßigkeit Der Kosten,” no. 4. https://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=20939&pub_id=21203.

Roumboutsos, A. B. (2010). Sustainability, Social Discount Rates and the Selection of Project Procurement Method. International Advances in Economic Research, 16(2), 165-174. doi:10.1007/s11294-009-9250-7

Segurado, P., Almeida, C., Neves, R., Ferreira, M. T., & Branco, P. (2018). Understanding multiple stressors in a Mediterranean basin: Combined effects of land use, water scarcity and nutrient enrichment. Science of The Total Environment, 624, 1221-1233. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.201

Thaler, T., Boteler, B., Dworak, T., Holen, S., & Lago, M. (2013). Investigating the use of environmental benefits in the policy decision process: a qualitative study focusing on the EU water policy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(10), 1515-1530. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.816271

[-]

recommendations

 

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record