Revealing the economic value of managed aquifer recharge: Evidence from a contingent valuation study inItaly

Abstract

Managed aquifer recharge [MAR) is a promising water management tool toward restoring groundwater balance and securing groundwater ecosystem services (i.e., water for drinking, industrial or irrigation use, control of land subsidence, maintenance of environmental flows to groundwater dependent ecosystems, etc.). Obviously, MAR projects can improve the quality of lives of the people by several ways. Thus, from a social perspective, the benefits of MAR cannot and should not be based only on market revenues or costs. Although the value of groundwater, from a social perspective, has been a subject of socio‐economic research, literature on the value of MAR per se is very limited. This paper, focusing on Italy which is a country with extensive utilization of MAR, aims to estimate the economic value of MAR and makes a first step toward filling this gap in the literature. For this purpose, the Contingent Valuation method was implemented to provide a monetary estimate and to explore the factors influencing people's attitude and willingness to pay for MAR. The results show that society holds not only use but also significant nonuse values, which are a part of the total economic value (TEV) of groundwater according to related research efforts. To this end, MAR valuation highlights its social importance for groundwater conservation and provides a solid basis for incorporating its nonmarket benefits into groundwater management policies and assessments.

A contingent valuation approach to estimating the recreational value of commercial whale watching – the case study of Faxaflói Bay, Iceland

“…Stated preference techniques, such as the contingent valuation method, involve the surveying of a representative sample of whale watchers and the creation of a hypothetical market for their consideration and subsequent elicitation of WTP ( Mitchell & Carson, 2013 ). Considered to be consistent with economic welfare theory ( Boyle, 2003 ), the method has been applied in a wide variety of contexts to elicit WTP in relation to obtaining an ES, increased provisioning or quality improvements of an ES, and to prevent diminished provisioning and quality decline of ES ( Brander & Koetse, 2011 ; Damigos, Tentes, Balzarini, Furlanis, & Vianello, 2017 ; Loomis & Keske, 2009 ). In the context of this study, the approach seeks to elicit preferences and estimate the maximum WTP of survey participants for the good of commercial whale watching.…”

Private Actions and Preferences for Coordinated Groundwater Conservation in Colorado's Republican River Basin

“…A key finding associated with this research is that values related to improvements in groundwater quality depend on perceptions of baseline groundwater quality in relation to standards set by health authorities. More recently, economists have utilized contingent valuation methods to evaluate WTP for increased quantities of groundwater (Stenger and Willinger 1998;Bian et al 2013;Damigos et al 2017). For example, research by Damigos et al (2017) estimates economic values associated with a groundwater recharge project in Italy and finds that nearly three-quarters of the value associated with additional groundwater comes from nonuse values.…”

“…More recently, economists have utilized contingent valuation methods to evaluate WTP for increased quantities of groundwater (Stenger and Willinger 1998;Bian et al 2013;Damigos et al 2017). For example, research by Damigos et al (2017) estimates economic values associated with a groundwater recharge project in Italy and finds that nearly three-quarters of the value associated with additional groundwater comes from nonuse values. Here we evaluate a contingent valuation question that asks producers to state their maximum WTP for maintaining current levels of groundwater capacity in the wells that they operate.…”

“…A more limited set of studies analyzes economic values for groundwater resources (e.g., Damigos et al. ), the factors that impact producer concerns for soil health (e.g., Ervin and Ervin ) and preferences for coordinated resource management (e.g., Pradhananga et al. ).…”

“…These studies assess soil and water conservation practices (e.g., Knowler and Bradshaw 2007;Prokopy et al 2008), as well as conservation technology adoption decisions (e.g., Schuck et al 2005;Chouinard et al 2016) of individual producers. A more limited set of studies analyzes economic values for groundwater resources (e.g., Damigos et al 2017), the factors that impact producer concerns for soil health (e.g., Ervin and Ervin 1982) and preferences for coordinated resource management (e.g., Pradhananga et al 2015). Our study diverges from previous literature by evaluating the extent to which a core set of characteristics impacts a range of important conservation-related outcomes.…”