Reducing acidification: the benefits of increased nature quality
description
Transcript of Reducing acidification: the benefits of increased nature quality
Reducing acidification: the benefits of increasednature quality
Investigating the possibilities of the Contingent Valuation Method
Dr.ir. E.C.M. Ruijgrok,09/02
Acidification abatement leads to costs, but it also generates benefits:
• reduced health risks;• less damage to buildings;• less damage to crops;
• increased nature quality.
monetarised
€
Core question
Can CVM be used to include the benefits of increased nature quality in Cost Benefit Analyses for acidificationabatement scenarios?
Method
Trial and error; a CVM survey was set up and tested
Research questions
1. Which functions of nature are affected by acidification?
2. Can these functions be monetarised by means of CVM?
3. Is it possible to distinguish different nature benefits per acidification abatement scenario?
• CO2 fixation
• Nitrogen storage
• Aluminium binding
• Binding heavy metals
• Recreational perception
• Non-use
A previous study showed that the following functionsare affected by acidification:
CVM
What is CVM?
• survey method
• it measures willingness to pay
hypothetical market
little story explaining the effects of acidification on nature to lain man
Option A: realise improvementThe government takesextra measures to reduce acidification to such an extentthat nature is healthy againin the year 2030
a yearly donation per household
Essential elements of CVM: non-use value
description
of the good
payment
vehicle
Option B: preventdeterioration
Essential elements of CVM:perception value
hypothetical market
description
of the good
payment
vehicle
photos of affected and unaffected forests, health lands, fens, grass lands and dunes
Entrance fees for natureareas depend on beauty
Entrance fee per visit
Sources of bias
1. The design of the questionnaire influences answers
2. Unfamiliarity with and difficulty of the questions
3. The respondent does not state his actual wtp
?
• bidders• zero bidders• protest bidders• ‘whole bidders’
Socially correctbehaviour Provide opportunity to say no
Starting point Open ended questions
Part whole Filter, zoom in
Bias: Precaution:
Register different types of bidders:
Distinguishing benefits per scenario
A. Netherlands NEC, rest of the world GothenburgB. Ammonium and nitrogen deposition minimizedC. EU NEC, rest of the world GothenburgD. All countries GothenburgE. Netherlands extra strong policy, rest Gothenburg
Dutch acidification abatement scenarios:
Abatement scenarios
Ammonium depositions for different emission scenarios
NH3-depositie
02004006008001000120014001600
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
jaar
molc/ha/j
A
C
D
E
Source: Kros et.al., 2000.
Different paths to the same deposition level
The scenarios differ little in biodiversity effects
Physical differences cannot be explained to lain man nor be shown on photos
CVM cannot distinguish benefits per scenario
Extra question on time
BUT:
Possible solution:
Determine benefits of extreme scenariosDerive benefits of less extreme scenarios from these
This requires agreements, decision rules
Pre Test and Preliminary results
Findings:
• most respondents were familiar with acidification• Euro leads to higher bids• bids for sooner improvements• Is acidification the biggest threat to nature?
A small pre test was held in nature reserve Meijendel and the city centre of Zoetermeer
Part whole bias ?
• non-use value varied from € 0 to € 100 per hh per year
Averge wtp : € 30 per hh per year
Households: 6.2 million
Rough estimate: € 207 million per year
• recreational use: average wtp 6 per visit
Preliminary results
Comparing the different benefits of acidification
Nature: ± € 207 million per year
Health: € 900 million per year (2010)
Ground water contamination: € 60 million in total
Damage to materials: € 59 million per year
Conclusion
Recommendation
• The benefits of nature are worth investigating
• CVM can be used to estimate the non-use and recreational benefits of nature • CVM is not suited for distinguishing benefits per abatement scenario if scenarios differ little• Decision rules for derivation are needed
For a Europe wide application adaptations are needed,paying attention to sources of bias:
Which?