IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/foi/wpaper/2021_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incorporating time lags and uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis of water quality improvements – a case study of Limfjorden, Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Thomas Lundhede

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Søren Bøye Olsen

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Brian H. Jacobsen

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

Abstract

Cost-benefit analyses are commonly applied to assess the net welfare effects of policies to improve surface water quality. These analyses often disregard the biophysical fact that from implementation of policy measures to resulting improvements on water quality there will typically be considerable time lags, and in many cases there is a risk that the measures will not actually lead to the expected improvement. Based on a case study, we show that explicitly accounting for such time lags and outcome uncertainty in the benefit estimation can have non-negligible impacts on cost-benefit analysis findings. Our analysis indicates that reaching the EU Water Framework Directive target for our case study will lead to large and robust welfare increases. Even if the target proves more difficult or more costly to reach than expected with known policy measures, our results suggest that attempting to do so will still lead to a net welfare gain to society. Increasing time lags and uncertainty regarding water quality improvements do decrease the benefits, but the benefits still outweigh the aggregate costs of policy measures. Only in the worst case scenario, combining a long time lag and a high level of outcome uncertainty for the water quality improvement with relatively high costs of policy measures, we are close to a break-even. Hence, we do not find evidence supporting a case for disproportional cost exemption from the WFD target being relevant for the Limfjorden case.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen & Brian H. Jacobsen, 2021. "Incorporating time lags and uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis of water quality improvements – a case study of Limfjorden, Denmark," IFRO Working Paper 2021/01, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:foi:wpaper:2021_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://okonomi.foi.dk/workingpapers/WPpdf/WP2021/IFRO_WP_2021_01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    2. Danny Campbell & Morten Raun Mørkbak & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2017. "Response time in online stated choice experiments: the non-triviality of identifying fast and slow respondents," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 17-35, January.
    3. De Valck, Jeremy & Rolfe, John, 2018. "Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Valuation: Status, Challenges and Road Ahead," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 11(4), pages 355-422, August.
    4. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    5. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    7. Søren B. Olsen & Cathrine U. Jensen & Toke E. Panduro, 2020. "Modelling Strategies for Discontinuous Distance Decay in Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 351-386, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Klauer, Bernd & Sigel, Katja & Schiller, Johannes, 2016. "Disproportionate costs in the EU Water Framework Directive—How to justify less stringent environmental objectives," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 10-17.
    10. Marije Schaafsma & Roy Brouwer & Alison Gilbert & Jeroen van den Bergh & Alfred Wagtendonk, 2013. "Estimation of Distance-Decay Functions to Account for Substitution and Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Research," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 514-537.
    11. Sigel, Katja & Klauer, Bernd & Pahl-Wostl, Claudia, 2010. "Conceptualising uncertainty in environmental decision-making: The example of the EU water framework directive," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 502-510, January.
    12. Kinell, Gerda & Söderqvist, Tore & Elmgren, Ragnar & Walve, Jacob & Franzén, Frida, 2012. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in a Framework of Stakeholder Involvement and Integrated Coastal Zone Modeling," CERE Working Papers 2012:1, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    13. Carsten L. Jensen & Brian H. Jacobsen & Søren B. Olsen & Alex Dubgaard & Berit Hasler, 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, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 164-200, July.
    14. Per-Olov Johansson & Bengt Kriström, 2011. "The New Economics of Evaluating Water Projects," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 231-254, October.
    15. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    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. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    3. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    4. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy demand management and social norms – the case study in Poland," Working Papers 2020-25, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Jan Macháč & Jan Brabec, 2018. "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: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(4), pages 1453-1466, March.
    6. De Valck, Jeremy & Broekx, Steven & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Testing the influence of substitutes in nature valuation by using spatial discounting factors," Working Papers 182808, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    7. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Estimating the Benefits of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Atlantic Member States: A Spatial Value Transfer Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 82-94.
    8. Artell, Janne & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2019. "Distance decay and regional statistics in international benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Martínez-Paz, José M. & Albaladejo-García, José A. & Barreiro-Hurle, Jesús & Pleite, Federico Martínez-Carrasco & Perni, Ángel, 2021. "Spatial effects in the socioeconomic valuation of peri-urban ecosystems restoration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    10. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Jeremy Valck & Steven Broekx & Inge Liekens & Joris Aertsens & Liesbet Vranken, 2017. "Testing the Influence of Substitute Sites in Nature Valuation by Using Spatial Discounting Factors," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(1), pages 17-43, January.
    13. J. Price & D. Dupont & W. Adamowicz, 2017. "As Time Goes By: Examination of Temporal Stability Across Stated Preference Question Formats," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 643-662, November.
    14. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.
    15. Manning, Dale T. & Rad, Mani Rouhi & Suter, Jordan F. & Goemans, Christopher & Xiang, Zaichen & Bailey, Ryan, 2020. "Non-market valuation in integrated assessment modeling: The benefits of water right retirement," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    16. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    17. Mark J. Koetse & Erik T. Verhoef & Luke M. Brander, 2017. "A generic marginal value function for natural areas," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 58(1), pages 159-179, January.
    18. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    19. DE VALCK, Jeremy & BROEKX, Steven & LIEKENS, Inge & DE NOCKER, Leo & VAN ORSHOVEN, Jos & VRANKEN, Liesbet, 2015. "Contrasting the collective social value of outdoor recreation and the substitutability of nature areas using hot spot mapping," Working Papers 208359, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    20. Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega & Manuel Pulido-Velazquez & Jacqueline Potts, 2015. "Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 497-520, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-benefit analysis; disproportional costs; time lags; uncertainty; water quality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:foi:wpaper:2021_01. 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/foikudk.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: Geir Tveit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/foikudk.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.