No abstract

An important motivation for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive is the creation of non-market environmental benefits, such as improved ecological quality, or greater opportunities for open-access river recreation via microbial pollution remediation. Pollution sources impacting on ecological or recreational water quality may be uncorrelated, but non-market benefits arising from riverine improvements are typically conflated within benefit valuation studies. Using stated preference choice experiments embedded within a survey that also collected respondents' socio-economic characteristics, we aimed to disaggregate these sources of value for different river users, thereby allowing decision makers to understand the consequences of adopting alternative investment strategies. Our results suggested that anglers derived greater value from improvements to the ecological quality of river water, in contrast to swimmers and rowers, for whom greater value is gained from improvements to recreational quality. More generally, we found three distinct groups of respondents: a majority preferring ecological over recreational improvements, a substantial minority holding opposing preference orderings, and a yet smaller proportion expressing relatively low values for either form of river quality enhancement. As such, this research demonstrates that the non-market benefits that may accrue from different types of water quality improvements are nuanced in terms of their potential beneficiaries and, by inference, their overall value and policy implications.

Abstract:To meet European Water Framework Directive requirements, data are needed on faecal indicator organism (FIO) concentrations in rivers to enable the more heavily polluted to be targeted for remedial action. Due to the paucity of FIO data for the UK, especially under high-flow hydrograph event conditions, there is an urgent need by the policy community for generic models that can accurately predict FIO concentrations, thus informing integrated catchment management programmes. This paper reports the development of regression models to predict base-and high-flow faecal coliform (FC) and enterococci (EN) concentrations for 153 monitoring points across 14 UK catchments, using land cover, population (human and livestock density) and other variables that may affect FIO source strength, transport and die-off. Statistically significant models were developed for both FC and EN, with greater explained variance achieved in the high-flow models. Both land cover and, in particular, population variables are significant predictors of FIO concentrations, with r 2 maxima for EN of 0.571 and 0.624, respectively. It is argued that

Choice decisions are inherently subjective but capturing and explaining nuanced variation in respondents' attitudes is difficult and needs more than the simple socio-demographic variables traditionally used in economic research. In recent years, environmental economists have been shifting towards a more holistic approach to economic valuation, making an increased use of psychology within behavioural economics, to better understand subjective preferences on the environment. This research applies a novel mixed-methods approach to integrate the results from a Q-methodological analysis, which reveals respondents' latent traits and perceptions about river management, into a choice experiment which estimates respondents' preferences for potential future improvements to river water quality. The purpose is to improve the quantification of subjectivity within stated preference experiments. Q-methodology reveals five statistically distinct narratives (characterised as Ecological, Financial, Leadership, Collaboration, Legislation) which define the main perspectives respondents hold for river management strategies. Choice experiment results suggest subjectivity causes significant differences in respondents' choice behaviour. Statistically verified Q-methodological narratives provide plausible explanations for differences in respondents' choice preferences regarding river water quality improvements. By triangulating between quantitative and qualitative research methods, we demonstrate a research strategy that can contribute to a better understanding of the impact socially contested perspectives have on respondents' choice behaviour.

Abstract:One important motivation for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive is the creation of non-market environmental benefits such as improved ecological quality, or greater opportunities for open-access river recreation via microbial pollution remediation. Pollution sources impacting on ecological or recreational water quality can be uncorrelated but non-market benefits arising from riverine improvements are typically conflated within benefit valuation studies. Using stated preference choice experiments, we seek to disaggregate these sources of value for different river users, thereby allowing decision makers to understand the consequences of adopting alternative investment strategies. Our results suggest anglers derive greater value from improvements to the ecological quality of river water, in contrast to swimmers and rowers for whom greater value is gained from improvements to recreational quality. We also find three distinct groups of respondents: a majority preferring ecological over recreational improvements, a substantial minority holding opposing preference orderings and a small proportion expressing relatively low values for either form of river quality enhancement. As such, this research demonstrates that the non-market benefits which may accrue from different types of water quality improvements are nuanced in terms of their potential beneficiaries and, by inference, their overall value and policy implications.