IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ufzrep/012015.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Unverhältnismäßige Kosten nach EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Ein Verfahren zur Begründung weniger strenger Umweltziele

Author

Listed:
  • Klauer, Bernd
  • Sigel, Katja
  • Schiller, Johannes
  • Hagemann, Nina
  • Kern, Katharina

Abstract

[Zielstellung] Das zentrale Ziel des Vorhabens besteht darin, ein Verfahren zu entwickeln, das es ermöglicht, in einem Wasserkörper mit überschaubarem Aufwand die Kosten von Maßnahmenprogrammen auf Unverhältnismäßigkeit zu prüfen, um auf diese Weise ggf. weniger strenge Umweltziele zu begründen. Es sollte für alle Oberflächenwasserkörper anwendbar sein, d.h. sowohl für natürliche Wasserkörper (natural water bodies - NWB) als auch für künstliche und erheblich veränderte Wasserkörper (artificial and heavily modified water bodies - A/HMWB). Das zu entwickelnde Verfahren sollte folgende Anforderungen erfüllen: - Legalität: Es muss dem Wortlaut und dem Geist der WRRL entsprechen. - Praktikabilität: Seine Anwendung darf nicht zu aufwändig sein und muss berücksichtigen, welche Daten bei den Bundesländern bereits vorliegen. - Beitrag zur Harmonisierung: Das Verfahren sollte für Standardfälle konzipiert sein. Es sollte im Prinzip in allen Bundesländern, zumindest allen Flächenländern gleichermaßen verwendet werden können. - Kosten-Nutzen-Abwägung und Zumutbarkeit: Das Verfahren sollte Kosten-Nutzen-Abwägung mit einbeziehen, wobei diese Größen nicht zwingend in (quantitativ)-monetärer Form eingehen müssen. Zumutbarkeitsargumente könnten ebenfalls herangezogen werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Klauer, Bernd & Sigel, Katja & Schiller, Johannes & Hagemann, Nina & Kern, Katharina, 2015. "Unverhältnismäßige Kosten nach EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Ein Verfahren zur Begründung weniger strenger Umweltziele," UFZ Reports 01/2015, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzrep:012015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/110368/1/825528542.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Perni, Angel & Jackson-Blake, Leah & Balana, Bedru B. & Mckee, Annie & Dunn, Sarah & Helliwell, Rachel & Psaltopoulos, Demetris & Skuras, Dimitris & Cooksley, Susan & Slee, Bill, 2015. "A transdisciplinary approach to the economic analysis of the European Water Framework Directive," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 34-45.
    2. Roy Brouwer & Frank Spaninks, 1999. "The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 95-117, July.
    3. 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.
    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. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & van der Ham, Corinda, 2014. "Costs and benefits associated with the externalities generated by Dutch agriculture," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Moeltner, Klaus & Boyle, Kevin J. & Paterson, Robert W., 2007. "Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 250-269, March.
    4. Koji Tokimatsu & Louis Dupuy & Nick Hanley, 2019. "Using Genuine Savings for Climate Policy Evaluation with an Integrated Assessment Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 281-307, January.
    5. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2009. "Managing environmental risk in agriculture: a systematic perspective on the potential of quantitative policy-oriented risk valuation," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1/2/3), pages 27-46.
    6. 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.
    7. Chris Dumas & Pete Schuhmann & John C. Whitehead, 2004. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of Water Quality Improvement with the Benefit Transfer Method: An Introduction for Non-Economists," Working Papers 04-12, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    8. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    9. Anne Rozan, 2004. "Benefit Transfer: A Comparison of WTP for Air Quality between France and Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 295-306, November.
    10. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    11. Brander, Luke M. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Kuik, Onno & Markandya, Anil & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Schaafsma, Marije & Wagtendonk, Alfred, 2010. "Scaling up Ecosystem Services Values: Methodology, Applicability and a Case Study," Sustainable Development Papers 60689, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    12. Shuang Liu & David I Stern, 2008. "A Meta-Analysis of Contingent Valuation Studies in Coastal and Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-15, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    16. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.
    17. Tran Huu Tuan & Truong Dang Thuy & Jin Jianjun & Anabeth L. Indab & Orapan Nabangchang, 2008. "Testing Benefit Transfer of WTP for Marine Turtle Conservation in Asia," EEPSEA Research Report rr2008071, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jul 2008.
    18. 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.
    19. Brander, Luke M. & Van Beukering, Pieter & Cesar, Herman S.J., 2007. "The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 209-218, June.
    20. Prof Clem Tisdell & R. Bandara, 2003. "Does The Economic Value Of The Asian Elephant To Urban Dwellers Exceed Their Cost To The Farmers? A Sri Lankan Study," Discussion Papers Series 325, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.

    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:zbw:ufzrep:012015. 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: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/doufzde.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 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.

    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.