Predicting microbial pollution concentrations in UK rivers in response to land use change

Hampson, Danyel; Crowther, John; Bateman, Ian J.; Kay, David; Posen, Paulette; Stapleton, Carl Michael; Wyer, Mark D.; Fezzi, Carlo; Jones, Philip; Tzanopoulos, Joseph

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.07.062

Cited by 31 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are spatial differences in ecological and microbiological pollution concentrations and vectors across UK rivers [56,57]. As the costs and the benefits of remediating that pollution are unequally distributed, it is simply not cost effective to direct scarce financial resources at pollution remediation equally across all rivers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River Water Quality: Who Cares, How Much and Why?

Hampson

Ferrini

Rigby

et al. 2017

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River Water Quality: Who Cares, How Much and Why?

Hampson

Ferrini

Rigby

et al. 2017

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are spatial differences in ecological and microbiological pollution concentrations and vectors across UK rivers [48,49]. As the costs and the benefits of remediating that pollution are unequally distributed, it is simply not cost effective to direct scarce financial resources at pollution remediation equally across all rivers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River Water Quality: Who Cares, How Much and Why?

Hampson

Ferrini

Rigby³

et al. 2017

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Analyses of alternative approaches to reducing diffuse agricultural pollution suggest that there is no necessary correlation between the cost of measures and their effectiveness. For example simple buffer strips have been found to be highly effective in mitigating the transport of farm fecal matter into water courses (Hampson et al, 2010).…”

Section: Sm3: Analysis Of a Mitigation Policy -Implementing The Wfdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatially explicit integrated modeling and economic valuation of climate driven land use change and its indirect effects

Bateman

Agarwala

Binner

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an integrated model of the direct consequences of climate change on land use, and the indirect effects of induced land use change upon the natural environment. The model predicts climate-driven shifts in the profitability of alternative uses of agricultural land. Both the direct impact of climate change and the induced shift in land use patterns will cause secondary effects on the water environment, for which agriculture is the major source of diffuse pollution. We model the impact of changes in such pollution on riverine ecosystems showing that these will be spatially heterogeneous. Moreover, we consider further knock-on effects upon the recreational benefits derived from water environments, which we assess using revealed preference methods. This analysis permits a multi-layered examination of the economic consequences of climate change, assessing the sequence of impacts from climate change through farm gross margins, land use, water quality and recreation, both at the individual and catchment scale.

show abstract

Predicting microbial pollution concentrations in UK rivers in response to land use change

Cited by 31 publications

References 27 publications

River Water Quality: Who Cares, How Much and Why?

River Water Quality: Who Cares, How Much and Why?

River Water Quality: Who Cares, How Much and Why?

Spatially explicit integrated modeling and economic valuation of climate driven land use change and its indirect effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About