IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/1309.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Bird s Eye View of the Greek Water Situation: The Potential for the Implementation of the EU WFD

Author

Listed:
  • Phoebe Koundouri
  • Nikos Papandreou
  • Kyriaki Remoundou
  • Yiannis Kountouris

Abstract

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was formulated for addressing the weaknesses of the previous water-related directives. The main steps that WFD involves could be summarised in the setting of ecological standards, the identification of anthropogenic pressures and the adoption of corrective measures. This introductory chapter describes the water situation in Greece and assesses the potential of the timely implementation of the European Union s (EU) WFD. In this context, the significance of Asopos River Basin (RB) is put into perspective. More analytically, the chapter presents: (a) the employed methodology that enables rapid assessment of the status quo of the water situation in each Greek catchment, as compared to the requirements and targets of the EU WFD, (b) the implementation of this methodology on each of the fourteen Greek River Basin Districts (RBDs) and (c) relevant empirical results. The main objective of the chapter is to present the rapid-appraisal methodology that was developed for the estimation of the cost-recovery level for water services in the fourteen Greek RBDs. Results from this quick appraisal clearly highlight the need for reforms in the current pricing policy and preparation of a package of measures, as proposed in Chapters 9 and 10, in order for the water bodies to reach good ecological status and the water management to ensure full recovery of the cost of water services as required under article 11 of the WFD.

Suggested Citation

  • Phoebe Koundouri & Nikos Papandreou & Kyriaki Remoundou & Yiannis Kountouris, 2013. "A Bird s Eye View of the Greek Water Situation: The Potential for the Implementation of the EU WFD," DEOS Working Papers 1309, Athens University of Economics and Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:1309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/Chapter1.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Phoebe Koundouri & Ekin Birol, 2011. "Water Resources Allocation:Policy & Socioeconomic Issues in Cyprus," DEOS Working Papers 1136, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Kirchhoff, Stefanie & Colby, Bonnie G. & LaFrance, Jeffrey T., 1997. "Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 75-93, May.
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    4. Phoebe Koundouri, 2004. "Current Issues in the Economics of Groundwater Resource Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 703-740, December.
    5. David Pearce & Corin Pearce & Charles Palmer (ed.), 2002. "Valuing the Environment in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1838.
    6. 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.
    7. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    8. Desvouges, William H. & Naughton, Michael C. & Parsons, George R., 1992. "Benefits transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies," MPRA Paper 36405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Crutchfield, Stephen R. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Hellerstein, Daniel, 1997. "Benefits of Safer Drinking Water: The Value of Nitrate Reduction," Agricultural Economic Reports 34025, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    11. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    12. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ebun Akinsete & Stella Apostolaki & Osiel Gonzalez Davila & Amerissa Giannouli & Stavros Gavroglou & Alice Guittard & Phoebe Koundouri & Eleftherios Levantis & Elisavet Mouslech & Vasileios Pergamalis, 2019. "Managing the effects of multiple stressors on aquatic ecosystems under water scarcity," DEOS Working Papers 1906, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Phoebe Koundouri & Osiel Gonzalez Davila, 2013. "The Use of Ecosystem Services Approach in Guiding Water Valuation and Management: Inland and Coastal Waters," DEOS Working Papers 1334, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    3. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    6. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Intarapapong, Walaiporn & Hite, Diane & Jaafar, Abdul H. & Hudson, Darren, 2000. "Predicted Vs. Estimated Welfare Measures: A Test Of The Benefits Transfer Method," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21748, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Brouwer, Roy & Bateman, Ian J., 2005. "Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 591-611, May.
    10. Poe, Gregory L. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Bergstrom, John C., 2000. "A Meta Analysis Of Contingent Values For Groundwater Quality In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21871, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    12. Thilo Muthke & Karin Holm-mueller, 2004. "National and International Benefit Transfer Testing with a Rigorous Test Procedure," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 323-336, November.
    13. Julie Poirier, 2012. "How to Deal with Protest Bids and Preference for the Status Quo in Choice Experiments ?," Working Papers 2012-02, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    14. Rosenberger, Randall S., 2001. "Testing the Validity of Benefit Transfers: A Site Correspondence Model," Western Region Archives 321686, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    15. Wronka, T.C. & Thiele, H., 2001. "Transfer von Umweltgüterbewertungen: Möglichkeiten, Grenzen und empirsiche Evidenz," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 37.
    16. Duke, Joshua M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Systematic Influences of Policy Implementation and Conservation Agents on Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21234, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Barton, David N., 2002. "The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 147-164, August.
    18. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2007. "What Determines Prediction Errors In "Benefits Transfer" Models?," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7967, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Poudel, Rajendra & Collins, Alan & Gazal, Kathryn & Wang, Jingxin, 2020. "Benefit transfer estimation of willingness-to-pay for U.S. wetlands conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    20. Hjerpe, Evan & Hussain, Anwar & Phillips, Spencer, 2015. "Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 32-50.

    More about this item

    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:aue:wpaper:1309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.html .

    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: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.