Voie d’Approfondissement et Mastère Spécialisé“ Gestion de l’Eau ” - 2009-2010

TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONSSUSTAINED BY THE MORPHOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF STREAMS

DASSONVILLE Cécile

E-mail : cecile.dassonville@free.fr

Final version – March 2010

"In terms of nature conservation, evaluation is neither necessary nor sufficient. We keep many things that we do not evaluate and little of what we value. "(Heal G., 2000, cited in Chevassus-au-Louis et al. 2009)

AgroParisTech - Engref à Montpellier Cemagref UMR G-EauB.P.7355 361, rue Jean-François Breton34086 MONTPELLIER Cedex 4 34196 Montpellier Cedex 05Tél. (33) 4 67 04 71 00 Tél. (33) 4 67 04 63 49Fax. (33) 4 67 04 71 01 Fax. (33) 4 67 16 64 40

VALORISATION DES FONCTIONS ÉCOLOGIQUES LIÉES À L'AMÉLIORATION MORPHOLOGIQUE DES COURS D'EAU

Economic valuation of ecological functionssustained by the morphological restoration of streams

DASSONVILLE Cécile

E-mail : cecile.dassonville@free.fr

RESUME

La directive cadre européenne sur l'eau pose comme approche majeure l'économie spécifique de l'eau et de ses services, et notamment l'analyse coûts/avantages des actions permettant d'atteindre le bon état écologique, dont l'état hydromorphologique est une composante soutenant l'état biologique.Le travail comprend une première partie de formalisation de ce qu'est la restauration morphologique, les impacts attendus, les fonctions et services affectés. La partie suivante présente les méthodes de valorisation économique des services environnementaux, avant de réaliser une revue bibliographique des différents travaux d'évaluation réalisés à l'échelle mondiale dans le domaine de la restauration morphologique de cours d'eau ou de zones humides.De ceux-ci, il ressort la difficulté de hiérarchiser les poids économiques des différentes fonctions hydromorphologiques en termes de valeur totale des services rendus. Par ailleurs, pour les services marchands, il existe peu de valeurs guides, alors que pour les services non marchands, celles-ci sont nombreuses mais méthodologiquement peu robustes.

MOTS CLES : cours d'eau, restauration, hydromorphologie, fonctions, services environnementaux, évaluation économique

ABSTRACT

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) states as a major approach the specific economy of water and water-related services, in particular through the analysis of costs and benefits of actions which would enable the achievement of a « good ecological status », including the morphological status as a component of the biological status.The first part of this work includes the formalization of what morphological river restoration is, its expected impacts, and the related functions and services. The second part presents the methods for economic valuation of environmental services and is followed by a bibliographical review of the various economic works in the field of morphological restoration all around the world.These reviews show that it seems difficult to organize the economic weights of the various morphological functions into a hierarchy of the values of the services provided. Additionally, for the market services, there are few reference values, while for the non-market services, these are numerous but the methods used are not completely reliable.

KEYWORDS : stream, restoration, hydromorphology, functions, environmental services, economic valuation

Final version - March 2010 1

SUMMARYABSTRACT......................................................................................................................................1Introduction: economic assessment of water systems WITHIN the regulatory FRAMEWORK.........3ecosystem functions and services affected by the morphological restoration...................................3 ● formalizing the definition of hydromorphology..............................................................................3 ● various functions and services provided by hydromorphology......................................................4 ● indicators of the morphological status..........................................................................................5 ● Impacts on morphological functions and corresponding restoration works...................................6economic valuation of environmental services.................................................................................8 ● The different economic approaches ............................................................................................8 ● Valuing services provided by ecosystems....................................................................................9 ● various ECONOMIC methods for assessing environmental services.........................................10 ● biases and methodological difficulties........................................................................................10Rivers and wetlands where the value of the hydromorphology was studied...................................11 ● In France....................................................................................................................................11 ● Abroad........................................................................................................................................12Conclusion: needs FOR research projects.....................................................................................13LST OF ACRONYMS.....................................................................................................................14GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS...........................................................................................15BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................16ANNEX 1 : Guidelines french values of uses that may be related to the hydromorphology............20ANNEX 2 : Bibliographical resources on the topic (per part)..........................................................25 ● The functions and ecosystem services affected by the morphological restoration......................25 ● The economic valuation of environmental services....................................................................26 ● Rivers and wetlands where the value of the hydromorphology was studied...............................27

INDEX OF TABLESTable 1 - Categories of uses and uses associated with the different functions of the hydrosystems.4Table 2 : Human interventions, associated issues and corresponding restoration works..................7Table 3 : Several methods of economic valuation of environmental services.................................10Table 4 -Guideline values for non-trade benefits on French rivers..................................................20Table 5 - Special cases for which the increase in the number of users is assumed high significance.......................................................................................................................................................22

INDEX OF FIGURESFigure 1 : Spatial information considered and indicators assessed by the SYRAH-CE evaluation system..............................................................................................................................................6Figure 2: Notion of surplus in economy............................................................................................8Figure 3: Components of the total economic value of ecosystems...................................................9

Final version - March 2010 2

INTRODUCTION: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF WATER SYSTEMS WITHIN THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The French law on water nr. 92-3 adopted on 3rd January 1992 has introduced an economic approach in defining management objectives for water resources (article L.211-1 of the French environmental code) :"The subject of chapters I to VII of this section is the balanced and sustainable management of water resources. This management takes into account the necessary adaptations to climate change and aims to ensure (… 5°) Valuing water as an economic resource and, in particular, for the development of electricity from renewable sources and the distribution of this resource. "By establishing a framework for the community action in the field of water policy (WFD), the 2000/60/EC directive adopted by the European Parliament and Council on 23rd October 2000 provides the basis of this dedicated economic approach. Economic analysis is covered in this framework directive in several respects (Chegrani, 2006) :- Calculation of cost recovery for services related to water use (article 9),- Assessment, on the basis of their potential costs, of "the most effective combination at lower cost of measures on water use that should be included in the program of measures referred to in article 11 "(annex III-b) : costs/effectiveness approach,- Possibility of suitable targets (extended deadlines or less stringent objectives), particularly in cases where "the completion of improvements within the timescale would be disproportionately costly" (article 4-4-a-ii) : costs/benefits approach.Also to be considered is the statement of the European Commission from 22nd June 2006 : "Stop the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond - Maintain ecosystem services for human well-being." Along with a biodiversity roadmap for the next decade, this statement makes it clear that one of the driving forces behind the loss of biodiversity is "the failure of governments and mainstream economics to recognize economic values of natural capital and ecosystem services "(Chevassus-au-Louis and al., 2009).Given these recent political and regulation changes, economic valuation of ecosystem services related to water, supported in part by the hydromorphology, appears as a major challenge today.

ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS AND SERVICES AFFECTED BY THE MORPHOLOGICAL RESTORATION

● FORMALIZING THE DEFINITION OF HYDROMORPHOLOGY

The "good ecological status" objective assigned to all water bodies by the European Water Framework Directive is based on an assessment of biological parameters and of certain chemical parameters. The physical parameters are only taken into account indirectly, through their influence on the biological status. However, they are taken into account to design "heavily modified" water bodies and also constitute a further indicator of the "very good status". The latter is not a goal for all water bodies, but a state to be preserved in some cases, under the non-degradation principle established by the Directive.Annex 5 of the Directive defines the hydromorphological elements supporting the biological parameters :"- Hydrological regime : quantity and dynamics of water flow, connection to groundwater bodies,- River continuity,- Morphological conditions : changes in river depth and width, structure and substrate of the bed, structure of the bank."These parameters can thus be divided into two broad categories :- Flow or process parameters : liquid and solid,- Form or structure parameters : morphology.Another way to comprehend this physical reality consists in ordering it into four interconnected dimensions : longitudinal, vertical, lateral and temporal dimensions (Wasson and al., 1998).

Final version - March 2010 3

Indeed, the good ecological status (or good potential for heavily modified water bodies) must synthetically reflect the many services rendered by hydrosystems.

● VARIOUS FUNCTIONS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY HYDROMORPHOLOGY

The concept of service results from a comparison between supply and demand created by bringing together either water systems and actual (direct or indirect) uses or water systems and future practices (option value). These uses can be brought about by final consumer demand (e.g. swimming, walking), they can have an input status (e.g. irrigation, industry), or contribute to the maintenance of ecological and climatic functions (ecosystem benefits) (Fustec and Lefeuvre, 2000).The different functions of water systems can therefore be connected with their associated uses (Amigues and al., 2003) :

Table 1 - Categories of uses and uses associated with the different functions of the hydrosystems

Functions Categories of use UsesSupply(water cycle)

Food, production, storage of resources

Drinking water supplyHealth (spas and mineral waters)

Trophic productivity Productive uses Fishery production : commercial fishing, aquaculture and shellfishIndustrial water : food industry (manufacturing process, cooling, washing)HydroelectricityGeothermal energyAgricultural water : food, agriculture, irrigationExtraction of river and marine materials

Treatment Processing, transportation and storage of material

Sanitation : domestic and industrial wasteDissemination of agricultural pollutionWaste treatment and storageHuman health (biological and chemical contamination)

Transportation Network, infrastructures Navigation : navigable rivers, canals...Harbour activity (commercial and recreational)

Recreational Recreational uses : recreation, contemplation

Recreational fishingHuntingSwimming and other water activitiesWalkwayAmenities (contemplation of sites and landscapes)

Heritage Ecological uses : biodiversity, conservation, protection

Protection of fauna and floraReproduction (wetlands, spawning grounds)Protection against flooding (wetlands)Future uses for oneself and for future generations (sustainable development)Watching and learning environment (training, research)Passive use (biodiversity...)Fire protection

Some critics may still be raised against this classification, i.e. on connecting hydroelectricty or geothermal energy with the function of trophic productivity, or on the status of use granted to the dissemination of agricultural pollution.

Final version - March 2010 4

More recently, the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, established in 2001 at the request of the General Secretary of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, recommends a classification of ecosystem services distinguishing four categories (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) :- “supporting services”, not directly used by humans but influencing the functioning of ecosystems (nutrient cycling, primary production)- “provisioning services” which provide appropriable goods (food, materials and fibers, fresh water, bioenergy)- “regulation services” i.e. the ability to adjust phenomena such as climate, the occurrence and extent of diseases, or different aspects of water cycle (floods, low flows, physico-chemical quality) in a way that is favorable for mankind- “cultural services”, namely the use of ecosystems for recreational, aesthetic and spiritual activities.As for water systems, physical parameters appear as being part of multiple services mentioned above, including (Souchon and Wasson, 2007) :- Storage, refill and supply of surface water and groundwater,- Regulation of transmission and retention of floodwater and sediments,- Flows of energy, especially all transformation processes of nutrients and organic matter,- Mechanical production of oxygen,- Provision of shelters and vital habitats for aquatic organisms.

● INDICATORS OF THE HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL STATUS

There is currently no standard tool in France for assessing the hydromorphological status of water systems, because it is not required by the WFD unlike those relating to the chemical or biological status.The NF EN 14614 standard of January 2005 (AFNOR T90-359) "Guidelines for the evaluation of hydromorphological characteristics of rivers” provides a framework for developing evaluation methods, based on methods developed, tested and compared within Europe. It specifies the hydromorphological characteristics to be paid attention to, yet without specifying either the methods of acquisition or the reading tables.Concerning French rivers, a 0 version physical-SEQ (module of the "System for Evaluating the Quality of water") was developed by the French ministry of Environment. This tool is still evolving, to enable better distinguishing of intrinsic hydromorphological characteristics from the degree of human pressure, like the Anglo-Saxon system, the River Habitat Survey (Pelte and Stroffek, 2007).The evaluation methodology of the evaluation network of habitats developed by the Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche (CSP) in 1996, already includes this principle in order to define the 6 following physical "compartments" in terms of current status, pressure, and alteration of the aquatic habitat (Hervochon and al., 2006) :- one hydrology-related compartment i.e. flow,- two continuity-related compartments : longitudinal continuity and water line,- three morphological compartments : the riverbed*, the banks/riparian forest* and annexes*/valley bottoms.Finally, in 2006 Cemagref was asked by the French ministry of Environment to establish a system for assessing the level of hydromorphological impairment of streams : SYRAH-CE. The approach proposed by this audit system allows for mapping hydromorphological alteration risk widely, identified through fourteen indicators. These are related to various types of alterations gained from the spatial processing of spatial information on land use and from data on developments and practices (Chandresis and al., 2007) :

*cf. Glossary of technical terms

Final version - March 2010 5

Figure 1 : Spatial information considered and indicators assessed by the SYRAH-CE evaluation system

Source : Chandresis et al., 2008 - cf. glossary for technical termsThus, the approach of the evaluation system SYRAH-CE is a top-down approach (spatial data analyzed on a wide scale to evaluate local indicators), and opposed to site approaches discussed above (characterization of local data to assess an overall status).At the local scale, the review of monitoring of hydromorphological characteristics of all stations of the national monitoring network in place for the WFD has been planned every six years, under the form of field surveys . This field protocol (defined as CARHYCE) is being developed by the national office of water and aquatic environments (ONEMA), Water Agencies and Cemagref, and is being implemented since 2009.Eventually, the fair representativeness of the indicators of hydromorphological status, coupled with a good knowledge of the pressure/impacts relationship should help target the best possible actions to restore a good hydromorphological status of streams.

● IMPACTS ON HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS AND CORRESPONDING RESTORATION WORKS

Over the past decade, several studies have focused on identifying the main types of human interventions affecting the physical parameters of aquatic systems and the associated issues (Wasson and al., 1998 ; AREA and Malavoi, 2003 ; Malavoi and Adam, 2007a).When considered, the restoration of the functionalities of the stream can be performed "passively", simply by reducing the degradation forces, or "actively", with more complex interventions. Assessing the geodynamic activity of the watercourse, which reflects its morphological ability to adjust naturally, makes it possible to determine the amount of improvement works and to limit their cost. It takes into account the specific power of the watercourse1, the bank erodibility and the sediments yield. The spatial scale of intervention (global or local) also significantly affects the cost of works (Adam and Malavoi, 2007b).

1The specific power is roughly the product of the slope by the flow, which characterizes the dynamic potential of the rivers.

Final version - March 2010 6

Restoration of rivers is a relatively new technique, and socio-political reluctance to reappraise some recent developments is still significant (peak of channeling works* in the years 1960-70). For example, the Water Agency Rhone-Mediterranean Sea-Corsica (2003) estimates that over 70% of their streams are impacted in terms of morphology by transverse structures or containment, correction, or channel management works.The manual of hydromorphological restoration of rivers (Adam and al., 2007) helps choosing the best techniques suited to each case, using detailed data sheets. Depending on the case, the following restoration techniques can be used :Table 2 : Human interventions, associated issues and corresponding restoration worksHuman intervention (in descending order of impact)

Major associated dysfunctions Major possible restoration works

1. Stream coverage Complete disappearance of habitats, fish unbridgeablity

- Reopening of stream- Recovery of alluvial mattress- Small fishery developments

2. Stream derivation Changing relationships between groundwater and river(low flow more pronounced)

- Remeandering* or recreating rivers- Banks and alternating berms*

- Small fishery developments- Creation of riparian forest*

3. Straightening of Homogenization of habitats, loss of flooding of the floodplain, increased flooding downstream, lowering the associated aquifer, destabilization of structures upstream

- Remeandering or recreating rivers- Changing the geometry of the riverbed* (increased grip)- Banks and alternating berms*

- Small fishery developments- Creation of riparian forest*

- Sills and ramps4. Recalibration* Deterioration of aquatic and semi-

aquatic habitats (banks), warming of water and worsening effects of eutrophication*, changing relationships between groundwater and river (low flow more pronounced), reduction of connections with hydraulic annexes*

(problems of fish breeding), increased hydraulic constraints during flood (loss of shelters for fish fauna)

- Remeandering* or recreation of river- Changing the geometry of the riverbed* (increased grip)- Recovery of alluvial mattress- Banks and alternating berms*

- Small fishery developments- Creation of riparian forest*

5. Removal of riparian forest

Habitat loss, increased temperature and brightness, erosion, wind exposure

- Changing the geometry of the riverbed* (increased grip)- Creation of riparian forest

6. Protection of banks Blocking of lateral flow dynamics*

(change in sediment dynamics), habitat degradation

- Removal of lateral constraints- Diversification of banks including for major navigable rivers

7. Dikes and parapets for dredging

Disconnecting the river from hydraulic annexes* (loss of habitats), incision of riverbed (cf. recalibration*)

- Removal of dams, expansion of intra-dikes*

- Reconnection of hydraulic annexes

*cf. Glossary of technical terms

Final version - March 2010 7

8. Dams and sills Change in liquid, solid and biological flows, gradual erosion downstream, warming

- Leveling/removal of sills

9. Ponds located on the river

Change in liquid and solid flows, biological warming

- Removal of ponds- Groins*

- Banks and alternating berms*

10. Extraction of aggregates

Loss of habitats, progressive and regressive erosion, removal of sediment recharge

- Recovery of alluvial mattress- Changing the geometry of the riverbed* (increased grip)- Groins*

- Banks and alternating berms*

Works related to restoration operations : maintenance of aquatic vegetation or the riparian forest, limiting trampling from livestock, fish passes, management of invasive species, cleaning maintenance

Economic valuation of services related to hydromorphology implies identifying the demand for these goods and services. The theoretical corpus and the characteristics of environmental goods make these valuations difficult, but specific methods therefore have been developed.

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

● THE DIFFERENT ECONOMIC APPROACHES

"Welfare" economics is based on the principle that the value granted by individuals to an asset is directly related to its usefulness (role for well-being) and scarcity (demand exceeds supply for free). This is supported by two central assumptions (Desaigues and Point, 1993) :- Individual preferences are the basis for assessing benefits- Individuals are best judges of their preferences.Methods for good valuation seek to measure the variation of the consumers and producers "surplus", being - in short - the difference between the maximum willingness to pay to acquire an asset and the price of this asset.

Figure 2: Notion of surplus in economy

Source : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_du_consommateurIn terms of natural assets, the surplus is the willingness to pay (WTP) for an increase of goods or services or the consent to receive (CTR) for a loss of goods or services (Desaigues and Point, 1993).Economic valuation of environmental goods also raises many ethical questions, and in particular :

*cf. Glossary of technical terms

Final version - March 2010 8

- Monetary valuation or alternative approach ?There are alternatives to the monetary value of ecosystem services. For example, valuation may take the form of non-monetary equivalent, like the notion of "ecological footprint" (Rees, 1992 ; Wackernagel and al., 1996 ; quoted in Chevassus-au-Louis and al., 2009) which aims at assessing and reducing the various forms of human impact on a required equivalent area, measured in "global hectares" (life cycle analyses).

- Welfare economics or ecological economics ?One can consider that preferences expressed by individuals for the preservation of natural heritage do not reflect a well understood public interest, e.g. due to misinformation or failure to take into account the welfare of future generations : thus we find a characteristic of "guardians" (Desaigues and Point, 1993).Several authors (Pearce, 1976 ; Page, 1977 ; Randall, 1991; OCDE, 2002, quoted in Chevassus-au-Louis and al., 2009) also suggest the need to combine an instrumental approach, such as the cost/benefit analysis, and a precaution principle aimed at maintaining a minimum level of biodiversity, thus introducing a "minimum standard of security" into the free expression of demand.

● VALUING SERVICES PROVIDED BY ECOSYSTEMS

One of the characteristics of certain services provided by ecosystems is that they are not marketed, with no indicator of their marketing value. Another aspect of these services is that they are often described as public2 or common3 goods, thus invalidating the individualistic assumptions of the welfare economics.The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) also recommends that supporting services should not be evaluated, given that they are key to the permanence of the remaining three categories of services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).Beyond uses, a category of values related to non-use is also characterized, including the existence value (i.e. not attached to any direct benefit) and the legacy value (future generations).

Figure 3: Components of the total economic value of ecosystems

(Chevassus-au-Louis et al., 2009)

2Common good is a philosophical principle which includes what is available to anybody, such as ways to increase one’s own knowledge. By extension, common good has also become a concept in economics and is applied e.g. to water or biodiversity (www.wikipedia.org), which mean a good whose consumption is non-exclusive but rival.3In economics, public goods are goods or services whose use is non-rival and non-exclusive, which means that the consumption of goods by an agent does not prevent its consumption by other agents (non-rivalry), and that it is not possible to prevent an agent from consuming this property (non-exclusion) (www.wikipedia.org).

Final version - March 2010 9

● VARIOUS ECONOMIC METHODS FOR ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

There are two types of approaches that make it possible to describe the economic value of environmental services : classical approaches, based on observable behaviors (revealed preferences), and methods based on surveys to collect statements from agents (stated preferences). Another dichotomy exists between methods aimed at gaining directly information on values and methods which infer such information indirectly from correlated information (Chevassus-au-Louis and al., 2009) :

Table 3 : Several methods of economic valuation of environmental servicesRevealed preferences Stated preferences

Direct Methods Monetization at market pricesRestoration costs, replacement costsAvoided costs, productivity effects

Contingent valuation

Indirect Methods Expenditures for protection and prevention behaviorsTravel costsHedonic Price

Conjoint AnalysisContingent rankingPaired comparison

For example, the following paragraphs describe the three most commonly used methods for assessing the services provided by ecosystems (Scherrer, 2004) :- The travel cost method is based on a simple idea : the value allocated to environmental goods is revealed by the travel cost born by visitors. This is an indirect valuation method since valuing a site is based on assessing a demand function. The value of the site is calculated from the demand function.- The hedonic price method is based on the idea that the price of a property depends on the characteristics thereof, some of which are related to environmental quality. Price differences between goods which nevertheless have common features therefore reflect differences in environmental matters and provide information on the implicit price of the asset, which improves (or degrades) the quality of the environment.- The contingent valuation method is the most used one because it is almost the only way to assess non-use values and the value of a project before its implementation. It implies building a fictitious market (quota) to induce individuals to reveal how they value some property or environment, as well as their improvement or deterioration. This method is implemented on the basis of surveys carried out among a representative sample of the population, where various imaginary scenarios are submitted to the people surveyed.

● BIASES AND METHODOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES

Whatether its object, each type of assessment involves methodological biases that should be reduced to a minimum. For example, the main biases encountered regarding the contingent valuation method are as follows (Chevassus-au-Louis and al., 2009):- Hypothetical bias : it depends on the hypothetical situation and a priori leads to overstatements as compared to real preferences ;- Strategic bias : this occur when people surveyed alter their answers to influence the results of the study and therefore the final decisions ;- Information bias : related to the nature of the information given to respondents likely to influence their preferences ;- Design bias : related to the vector of payments interviewces may think they can avoid or to the way questions are asked ;- Inclusion bias: due to the difficulty for the surveyed persons to distinguish their WTP for the

Final version - March 2010 10

good water study from a larger set of goods or services ;- Moral satisfaction bias (or donation effect) : the propensity of the respondents to contribute to a "right cause" due to the satisfaction gained thereof, regardless of their genuine interest in the threatened asset or service.- void WTPs: there are 2 possible reasons for these answers: either the change described makes no difference to the people surveyed, or the latter think that they are not the ones who should pay ("protest zero"). There is a whole literature on how to deal with these false responses and/or false zeros.Some studies have also confirmed the existence of a major difference between CTR and WTP up to a 10 factor. Improving the contingent approach therefore leads to the method of programs, designed to reduce the hypothetical bias by giving the agents more familiar choices than stating their willingness to pay. Agents are then faced with dichotomous choices between action programs that have different costs/prices.Finally, discounting in case of environmental assets can be a problem, because it should take into account the preferences of future generations.Analysts are thus faced with a dilemma : while only techniques based on stated preferences make it possible to take into account other values than the direct use, results obtained through these methods are sensitive to the conditions of their implementation and sometimes difficult to interpret. The information collected with methods related to observable behaviors only (travel costs, hedonic pricing) may not be sufficient to guide choices and those based on costs (restoration, replacement, impact on production functions, including agricultural production functions) face the issue of the effective completeness of the proposed substitution. As a result, building and using reference data to develop transfer values between studied ecosystems and threatened ecosystems for which there is no information available implies much proper judgment, yet it seems necessary ifor the sake of cost saving and implementation time. In order to decision making it is necessary to find ways to "standardize" these values in order to use them in various contexts (transferring values). There are two possibilities for this, i.e. either by transferring the unit value obtained in a specific study site into a site with similar characteristics (reference value), or by transferring a demand equation and applying the coefficients estimated on a site onto the corresponding variables on the other site (transfer function).Regarding the evaluation of hydromorphological conditions, the main methodological issues are related to the spatial scale to take into account (impacts upstream and downstream), and the time scale (response time of the environment), which affects directly the time of recover of services.

Therefore, values gained from previous studies on the economic valuation of services rendered by hydromorphology can be taken into account within this overall analysis.

RIVERS AND WETLANDS WHERE THE VALUE OF THE HYDROMORPHOLOGY WAS STUDIED

● IN FRANCE

Hydromorphological restoration techniques are now well known in Europe, particularly in Germany, where they now account for more than twenty-five years of operating experience. In France, ex-post4 technical studies have been carried out on the efficiency of river restoration works to achieve the best cost-efficiency ratio, for example on the Rhone-Mediterranean Sea-Corsica basin (Adam and al., 2006). Still, there are only a few cost-benefit analyses specifically aimed at valuating hydromorphological improvements.Departments responsible for economic valuation within the French ministry of Environment have identified and even carried out several ex-ante5 cost-benefit analyses, including on Natura 2000 sites and on measures to achieve the good ecological status in accordance with EU Framework Directive (Terra, 2005a, b, c, d). All these studies are available online at:

4 Refers to the analysis of economic facts done after they have occurred (www.larousse.fr)5 Refers to the analysis of economic facts-before they have occurred, resulting projects and expectations of economic agents

(www.larousse.fr)

Final version - March 2010 11

www.economie.eaufrance.fr. Some of them include an evaluation of the benefits from improved morphology, yet without explicitly distinguishing these benefits from other services. The studied benefits mainly concern lower water treatment costs for market benefits, and recreational uses and heritage value related to the watercourse (non use) for non-market benefits.For example, on the Gardon (Chegrani et al., 2007), the total benefit of achieving a good status of water body was estimated at ca. 2.86 M€/year. Moreover, capital expenditure incurred for this restoration was estimated at 1.8 M€, of which approximately 50% were used for actions to improve morphology. This shows the economic efficiency of the implementation of WFD actions on this river. Still within the framework of the implementation of the WFD, the Water Agency of the Seine Normandy area carried out 55 cost-benefit analyses on water bodies for which the costs to achieve a good status by 2015 were deemed to be economically disproportionate (Large, 2008). The results of these cost/benefit analyses indeed show that the cost of the actions taken is disproportionate in relation to the expected benefits, except for 6 analyses in which the heritage value of non-users accounts for more than 50% of the benefits, thus leading to very high benefits.Therefore, no generalization can be inferred from the overall cost/benefit analyses concerning the restoration of rivers. This result should therefore be considered on a case-by-case basis.The reference values obtained for non-market benefits that may be related to hydromorphology are presented in a summary table in Annex 1. They show the particular situations where the increase in number of users is assumed to be high and significant (Chegrani, 2007).Estimates of per person (or per household) willingness to pay are fairly consistent for all services surveyed (within a price range of 10 to 100 euros per year and in most cases, per household). This may show some kind of indifference towards the issue of contingent studies (probable "donation" effect), however these values seem to be confirmed by revealed preferences methods for direct uses. The French data also clearly show a lack of knowledge about the value of marketed provisioning services such as agricultural production or of regulating services (flood, low flow, climate).It can be noted that, since 2000, BRGM (water division) has created a team specialized in water economics. Since 2007, this team has been conducting a research program in partnership with the Water Agency for Rhone-Mediterranean Sea-Corsica on the economic evaluation of benefits associated with achieving the good status of rivers in the Rhone-Mediterranean-Corsica district (case studies, test of a method for transferring values from one site to another, aggregation of benefits across the district). A preliminary study on the downstream Turdine was published in January 2009 (Aulong and Maton, 2009).

● ABROAD

The most famous database for studies on evaluation of natural assets is without doubt the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI), which today lists more than 2000 studies, classified according to several categories of systems. It was developed by Environment Canada and is part of an agreement with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and France, and is available for free to citizens of member countries (www.evri.ca). There are other international databases available on a more or less free basis, such as the Australian ENVALUE database (www.epa.nsw.gov.au/envalue), the Ecosystem Services Database (www.esd.uvm.edu) developed by the Günd Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont, or the externality Review of Data from the European Commission (www.red-externalities.net) (Chevassus-au-Louis et al., 2009).A study by the French ministry of Environment examined the differences between the values from EVRI database and national values according to four themes related to the morphological status of rivers : heritage value of the restoration of aquatic environments (including salmon migration), groundwater value, wetland value, economic surplus derived from recreational fishing. It shows that French studies values are on average much lower than the values of the EVRI database, which does not allow for recommendations on the transfer of values from the EVRI to France on the themes explored (Chegrani and Terra, 2006).In United Kingdom, the Environment Agency has set up the « Benefits Assessment Guidance »

Final version - March 2010 12

(BAG) manual, which proposes a methodology for aggregating values to assess the potential economic impact of the WFD. This method is based - among others - on the attraction range of sites, the conversion from a daily number of visits into a yearly number, a model on the evaluation of properties, and a non-use reference value. As a result, some values (land amenities, non-use) account for a significant share of benefits in all regions of United Kingdom, while others are more related to local contexts (informal recreational use in Northern Ireland, fishing in Scotland). However, no commercial benefit is assessed through this method. The BAG has been implemented to carry out 465 cost-benefit analyses in United Kingdom. In about 60% of the cases studied, the estimated benefits were greater than 120% of costs (Chegrani, 2006).A worldwide literature review of scientific papers also identified some (few) recent studies, in particular on the recovery of morphological restoration :

• Contingent valuation was used by Loomis et al. (2000), who studied five ecosystem services which could be restored on a 70 km section along the Platte River in the United States (waste water dilution, water purification, erosion control, habitat for fish and wildlife, recreational uses). The 100 respondents accepted to have their water bill increased by a monthly $21 (yearly $252) to improve these services. When extending this result to all households living along the river, the amount obtained ranges from $19 to $70 million (depending on the interpretation of void responses), a much greater sum than the costs of conservation projects, estimated at $13.4 million to improve these services.

• In a survey of available economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management, Birol et al. (2006) compiled other results from recent studies according to different methods for economic valuation of water resources. Thus, Loomis (2002) used the transport cost method to assess recreational uses in connection with the removal of four dams and the morphological restoration of a stream (Lower Snake River, Washington, U.S.). He reckoned that removing dams and restoring 225 km along rivers would amount to a $310 million annual benefit for recreational uses, which exceeds the value of recreational uses associated with dam lakes, but still accounts for $60 million less than the cost of works on a yearly basis.

• As for weighing different values in terms of economic weight, the same paper quotes Brouwer et al. (1999), who carried out a meta-analysis on thirty wetland evaluations, showing that use values (water flows and quality) had a greater influence on the willingness to pay than non-use values like biodiversity.

• In "The economic impacts of river rehabilitation : A Regional Input-Output Analysis," Spörri et al. (2007) developed an interesting approach to estimate the impact of the restoration of the Thur river, northern Switzerland, on employment in the local economy. Their results show a relatively low impact, confirming the hypothesis that other benefits directly related to the good status of the river (recreational uses for example) should be assessed first.

The multiple results from French and international studies performed to assess the hydromorphological improvement of watercourses clearly indicate how difficult it is to rank the economic weights of the various related functions. Moreover, there are fewer reference values for market services than for non-market services, even though the latter are not fully reliable.

CONCLUSION: NEEDS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS

Considering the various works reviewed above, future challenges in terms of economic valuation of the morphological improvement of streams have more to do with practical works using available methods than with methodological developments. It also seems necessary to clearly identify the uses (or non-uses) related to the hydromorphology of streams that have the strongest economic weight in terms of services, in order to define priorities for future studies.The concept of ecological equivalence could become significant in the future, especially in the field of compensation practices. Establishing this clearly implies developing new approaches to non-monetary assessments, as explicit as possible, to establish equivalences.

Final version - March 2010 13

LST OF ACRONYMS

AFNOR: Agence Française de Normalisation (French Standardization Agency)

BAG: Benefits Assessment Guidance

BRGM: Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (French Geology and Mining Research Office)

CTR: Consent To Receive

CARHYCE: CARactérisation de l'HYdromorphologie des Cours d'Eau (characterizing the morphology of water streams)

CEMAGREF: Centre National du machinisme Agricole, du Génie Rural, des eaux et des Forêts (French National Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Engineering and Water Management).

EVRI: Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory

GIP: Groupement d'Intérêt Public (public interest group)

MEA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

ONEMA: Office national de l'Eau et des Milieux Aquatiques (National Office for Water and Aquatic Environments)

SEQ: System for Evaluating the Quality of water

SYRAH-CE: SYstème Relationnel d'Audit de l'Hydromorphologie des Cours d'Eau

WFD: Water Framework Directive

WTP: Willingness To pay

Final version - March 2010 14

GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

Annex: Set permanently or temporarily connected to the current environment through either surface or underground links i.e. islands, backwaters or feedings, water meadows, floodplain forests, riparian forests, rivers and groundwater sources

Berm: Area created in the bank to increase the gauge of a river during floods, without widening the riverbed

Channeling works: Any development on rivers to accelerate flow through over sizing, simplifying the geometry of juvenile beds and reducing roughness

Eutrophication: Modification and degradation of an aquatic environment, usually related to excessive nutrient intake, which increases the development of algae and aquatic plants

Facies: Portion of stream relatively consistent from a structural and operational viewpoint in terms of speed, water level, substrate size, slope of the bed, water line and transverse profiles

Groin: Construction perpendicular to the bank of a river to impede the action of erosion

Hydrological regime: All changes in the condition and characteristics of a body of water which occur regularly in time and space and go through cyclic changes, e.g. on a seasonal basis

Hydrology: Earth science that focuses on the water cycle, that is to say, the exchanges between the atmosphere, land surface and subsurface

Intra-dike: Area located on the low water bed side, opposite to a dike

Lateral dynamics: Pseudo-equilibrium of lateral forces in river dynamics

Riparian corridor: Strip of land along a river whose natural woody vegetation is influenced by the river, and interacts with it

Recalibration: Intervention on a river in order to reproduce in full the bed and banks, with the priority objective to increase the hydraulic capacity of the section

Remeandering: Delinearisation a river and recreation of its winding path

Riparian forest: All types of woodland, bush and grass present on the banks of a river

Riverbed: also called regular bed, any space occupied permanently or temporarily, by a stream. The floodplain is the area occupied by the stream at its greatest flood, while the average bed space is occupied by the frequent floods

Speed full board: Flow of water flowing to the brim before any overflow

Final version - March 2010 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam P., Debiais N., and Malavoi J.R., 2007. Manuel de restauration hydromorphologique des cours d'eau. Nanterre, Agence de l'eau Seine-Normandie, 64 p. Available on internet : http://www.eau-seine-normandie.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/Collectivite/HYDROMORPHO/01Manuel_restauration.pdf [consulté le 15/10/2009]

Adam P., Malavoi J.R., and Debiais. N., 2006. Retour d'expérience d'opérations de restauration de cours d'eau et de leurs annexes sur le bassin Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse. Lyon, Agence de l'eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse, 133 p. Available on internet : http://62.73.1.169/h2o/site/DOSSIERS_doc/rapport-restauration2.pdf [consulté le 9/10/ 2009]

Amigues J.P., 2001. Valorisation économique des usages non-énergétiques de l'eau sur le Lot. INRA LEERNA / EDF. http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/spip.php?article214&id_rubrique=66&id_etude=32 [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Amigues J.P., Arnaud F., and Bonnieux F., 2003. Evaluation des dommages dans le domaine de l’eau : contribution à la constitution d’une base de données françaises. Toulouse, INRA, 38 p. Available on internet : http://w3.rennes.inra.fr/economie/pdf/evalbonn.pdf [consulté le 15/10/2009]

AREA, and Malavoi J.R., 2003. Stratégie d'intervention de l'agence de l'eau sur les seuils en rivière. Agence de l'eau Loire-Bretagne, 135 p. Available on internet : http://www.eau-loire-bretagne.fr/espace_documentaire/documents_en_ligne/guides_milieux_aquatiques/Seuil_sommaire.pdf [consulté le 15/10/2009]

Arènes J.F., 1998. Evaluation des bénéfices non marchands du programme de restauration et d'entretien des cours d'eau du bassin de l'Arbas, programme subventionné par l'Agence de l'Eau Adour-Garonne. Rapport de stage, Agence de l'eau Adour-Garonne, 63 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/ETUDE_33_complet.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Armand C., Bonnieux F., and Changeux T., 2002. Evaluation économique des plans de gestion piscicoles. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic, n° 365/366, 565-578.

Aulong S., and Maton L., 2009. Evaluation des bénéfices environnementaux liés à l'amélioration de l'état écologique de la Turbine aval. Montpellier, BRGM, 135 p.

Birol E., Karousakis K., and Koundouri P., 2006. Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management : A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science of The Total Environment, n° 365 (1-3), 105-122.

Bonnieux F., and Vermersch D., 1993. Bénéfices et coûts de la protection de l'eau : l'application de l'approche contingente à la pêche sportive . Revue d'économie politique, n° 103, 132-151.

Bonnieux F., Guerrier C., and Fouet J.P., 2002. Valorisation économique des usages de l'eau sur le Lignon en Velay. Rennes, INRA - Unité d'économie et sociologie rurales, 17 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/ETUDE_23-17.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Brouwer, R. et al., 1999. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change , n° 1 (1), 47-57.

Final version - March 2010 16

Brunel A., 1996. Application empirique : évaluation des bénéfices liés à la réalisation d'une réserve d'eau potable à partir de l'Erdre et évaluation des bénéfices touristiques liés à l'amélioration de la qualité de l'eau de l'Erdre. Mémoire de DEA, 92 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/ETUDE_16-03-24-28_complet.pdf [consulté le 8/10/2009]

Chandresis A., Malavoi J.R., Souchon Y., Wasson J.B., and Mengin N., 2007. Le système relationnel d'audit de l'hydromorphologie des cours d'eau (SYRAH-CE) : un outil multi-échelles d'aide à la décision des cours d'eau. Ingénieries, n° 50 (Juin), 77-80.

Chegrani P., 2006. Evaluer les bénéfices environnementaux sur les masses d'eau. Serie études. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 116 p. Available on internet : http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/evaluer_les_benefices_environnementaux_sur_les_masses_d_eau.pdf [consulté le 15/10/2009]

Chegrani P., 2007. Evaluer les bénéfices issus du changement des eaux. Collection études et synthèses. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 13 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/07089pc_Evaluer_benefices__changement_etat-eaux.pdf [consulté le 8/10/2009]

Chegrani P., and Terra S., 2006. Bilan du stage "revue de bibliographie de la base EVRI, le cas de l'eau". Paris, MEDD – D4E, 46 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/06188pc_-_bilan_stage_evri_eau.pdf [consulté le 8/10/2009]

Chegrani P., Terra S., and Fleuret A., 2007. Analyse coûts-avantage de la restauration d'une rivière : le cas du Gardon aval. Collection "Etudes et synthèses". Paris, MEDAD – D4E, 61 p. Available on internet : http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/D4E_200707_AcaRestaurationRiviere_rapport.pdf [consulté le 1/10/2009]

Chevassus-au-Louis B., Salles J.M., Bielsa S., Richard D., Martin G., and Pujol J.L., 2009. Approche économique de la biodiversité et des services liés aux écosystèmes - contribution à la décision publique. Paris, Centre d'analyse stratégique, 378 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_bio_v2.pdf [consulté le 1/10/2009]

Deronzier P., and Terra S., 2006. Etude sur la valorisation des aménités du Loir. Série Etudes. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 84 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/etude_55_1156930176.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Desaigues B., and Point P., 1993. Economie du patrimoine naturel - La valorisation des bénéfices de protections de l'environnement. Paris, Economica, 317 p.

Eaufrance (portail de l'eau Etat/ONEMA). Economie : L'accès aux données économiques du système d'information sur l'eau. http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/ [consulté le 1/10/2009]

El Yousfi H., Nicolaï S., and Casin P., 2006. Etude économique sur les coûts et bénéfices environnementaux dans le domaine de l'eau : l'île de Rhinau. Rapport de stage, Agence de l'eau Rhin-Meuse. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/resumes/resume_70_1165833533.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Final version - March 2010 17

Fustec E., and Lefeuvre J.C., 2000. Fonctions et valeurs des zones humides. Paris, Dunod Environnement, 426 p.

Hervochon F., Chapon P.M., Leclainche J.C., Gilbert P., Vienne L., Vigneron T., and Leroy R., 2006. Du concept de "bon état écologique" de la directive cadre sur l'eau à l'application dans les opérations de restauration et d'entretien de rivière - Adaptation de la méthode du "réseau d'évaluation des habitats" (REH) à l'étude préalable au "contrat de restauration et d'entretien" (CRE) de la rivière Arz dans le Morbihan. Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n° 10, 47-75.

Large A., 2008. Justification des dérogations économiques à l’atteinte du bon état des eaux en Seine-Normandie - Approches à différentes échelles. Nanterre, Agence de l'eau Seine-Normandie, 93 p.

Loomis J., 2002. Quantifying recreation use values from removing dams and restoring free-flowing rivers : A contingent behavior travel cost demand model for the Lower Snake River. Water Resour. Res., n° 38 (6), 1066.

Loomis J., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K. and Covich A., 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, n° 33, 103-117.

Malavoi J.R., and Adam P., 2007a. Les interventions humaines et leurs impacts hydromorphologiques sur les cours d'eau. Ingénieries, n° 50, 35-48.

Malavoi J.R., and Adam P., 2007b. Préservation et restauration physique des cours d'eau - Aspects techniques. Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n° 2, 39-53.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human weel-being : wetlands and water – Synthesis. 80 p. Available on internet : http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf [consulté le 17/10/2009]

OCDE, 2002, Manuel d’évaluation de la biodiversité – Guide à l’intention des décideurs. Paris, OCDE, 173 p.

Pelte T., and Stroffek S., 2007. Evaluation de l'état hydromorphologique. cas des milieux fortement modifiés. Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n° 2, 30-37.

Rees W. E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity : what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanisation, n°4 (2), 121–130.

Page T., 1977. Conservation and Economic Efficiency. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press.

Pearce D. W., 1976. The limits of cost-benefit analysis as a guide to environmental policy. Kyklos, fasc. 1. (repris dans D.W. Pearce, Economics and the Environment: Essays in Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1999).

Point, P., and GIP HydrOsystèmes, 1999. La valeur économique des hydrosystèmes - Méthodes et modèles d'évaluation des sytèmes délivrés. Paris, Economica, 190 p.

Randall A., 1991. The value of biodiversity. Ambio, n°20 (2), 64-68.

Scherrer S. 2004. Comment évaluer les biens et services environnementaux ? Paris, La documentation française - Réponses environnement, 45 p.

Final version - March 2010 18

Souchon Y., and Wasson J.B., 2007. Le bon état et le bon potentiel écologiques : la structure et le fonctionnement physiques, déterminants du fonctionnement biologique des cours d'eau. nouveaux paramètres de surveillance. Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n° 2, 21-29.

Spörri C., Borsuk M., Peters I., and Reichert P., 2007. The economic impacts of river rehabilitation : A regional Input–Output analysis. Ecological Economics, n° 62 (2), 341-351.

Terra S., 2005a. Guide de bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre de la méthode des coûts de transport. Série Méthode. Paris, MEDD -D4E, 40 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/05-M05_Guide_de_BP_pour_la_mise_en_oeuvre_de_la_MCT.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Terra S., 2005b. Guide de bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre des études de valorisation environnementale : aide à la rédaction de cahiers des charges. Série Méthode. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 31p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/05-M02_Guide_general.pdf [consulté le 1er octobre 2009]

Terra S., 2005c. Guide de bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre de la méthode d'évaluation contingente. Série Méthode. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 83 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/05-M04_Guide_de_BP_pour_la_mise_en_oeuvre_de_la_MEC.pdf [consulté le 1/10/2009]

Terra S., 2005d. Guide des bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre de la méthode des prix hédonistes. Série Méthode. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 35 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/05-M01_Guide_de_BP_pour_la_mise_en_oeuvre_de_la_MPH.pdf [consulté le 1/10/2009]

Wackernagel M., Onisto L., Bello P., Linares A. C., Falfán I. S. L., García J. M., Guerrero A. I. S., and Guerrero M. G. S., 1999. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, n°29 (3), 375-390.

Wasson J.G., Malavoi J.R., Maridet L., Souchon Y., and Paulin L., 1998. Impacts écologiques de la chenalisation des rivières. Études : gestion des milieux aquatiques. Lyon, CEMAGREF Éditions, 158 p.

Final version - March 2010 19

ANNEX 1 : GUIDELINES FRENCH VALUES OF USES THAT MAY BE RELATED TO THE HYDROMORPHOLOGYTable 4 -Guideline values for non-trade benefits on French rivers(to be applied - unless otherwise stated – to the number of persons or households practicing the activity on the study site)

Context and change in water conditio

Users Fishing Kayaking Bathing Parkway

Heritage(non-users)

Hydromorphological or hydraulic visible changesPassage of a sedentary salmon fishing by stocking to sport fishing wild sedentary salmonidReduction of algae

For users of the site:7.7 €2006/ fisherman/ year(7 to 20 €2001)(Lignon du Velay: Bonnieux et al., 2002)Other value (cons-intuitive result) :2.9 €2006/ visit(2.4 to 2.6 €1994) (Limousin : Point and GIP Hydrosystemes, 1999)For the fishermen of the department who do not attend the site :3.8 €2006/ fisherman/ year(3.5 to 7 €2001) (Lignon du Velay : Bonnieux et al., 2002)Other value :3.4 €2006/ fisherman/ year(3 to 7 €1999)(Indre and Hérault: Armand et al., 2002)

No guideline value No guideline value 6,6 €2006/ person / year (6 to 11 €2001)(Lignon du Velay : Bonnieux et al., 2002)

5,5 €2006/ person/ an (de 5 à 8,5 €2001) (Lignon du Velay : Bonnieux et al., 2002) To be applied to non-users residents of the watershed

Final version - March 2010 20

River Plain, 2nd class, from the risk of not achieving good status (nitrates, pesticides, morphology, hydrology doubt) to good status

36 €2006/ fisherman/ year(34,8 €2004, confidence interval [31,2 - 39,7]) (Loir : Deronzier and Terra 2006)Othe value :32,1 €2006/ fisherman/ year(31,6 €2005, confidence interval [29,5 - 33,6]) (Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007)

For regular practicioners :36 €2006/ kayaker/ year (34,8 €2004, confidence interval [31,2 - 39,7]) (Loir : Deronzier and Terra, 2006)Other value :32,1 €2006/ kayaker/ year(31,6 €2005, confidence interval [29,5 - 33,6]) (Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007)Pour casual practicioners (adherents to the day) :7,9 €2006/ household/ year(7,8 €2005)(Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007)

32,1 €2006/ swimmer/ year(31,6 €2005, confidence interval [29,5 – 33,6])(Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007)

36 €2006/ household/ year(34,8 €2004, confidence interval [31,2 – 39,7])(Loir : Deronzier and Terra, 2006)Other value :32,1 €2006/ household/ year(31,6 €2005, confidence interval [29,5 – 33,6])(Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007)

If urban valley, little known (northern half of France) :24,8 €2006/ household/ year(24 €2004, confidence interval [19,7 – 30,4])(Loir : Deronzier and Terra 2006) To be applied to non-users household of towns crossed by the river

If rural valley, well known (southern France) :25 €2006/ household/ year(24,7 €2005, confidence interval [19,7 - 30,4]) (Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007)To be applied to non-users household of towns crossed by the river

Restoration program (10-15 km / year) and maintenance (5-10 km / year) of rivers, by manual techniques. Main river 19 km in rural context

No guideline value 18,2 €2006/ household/ year(16 to 19 €1998)(Arbas : Arènes, 1998)To be applied for households of towns crossed by the rivers to restore

Final version - March 2010 21

Wild fish (pike, trout) can live and reproduce in the aquatic environment (although initially not present or absent)

7,9 €2006/ fisherman/ year(7 to 14 €1999)(Indre and Hérault : Armand et al., 2002)

Other value :8,1 €2006/ fisherman/ year(7 €1996)(Erdre : Brunel, 1996)

No guideline value

Protection of riparian forests : creation of nature reserves, use of less polluting farming techniques, banning access to certain sites, aside along the river

11,6 €2006/household /year (10 à 22 €1996)for the preservation of biological diversity of forests along the river(Garonne : Point and GIP HydrOsystemes, 1999)To be applied for households living within 15km of the river

Restoration of an island on the old course of a channelized river : reconnection of oxbows, restoration of the riparian forest, improvement of the biodiversity

18,7 €2006/household /year, to be applied to households in the surrounding communities of the island,14,1 €2006/household /year, to be applied to households in municipalities located within 10km of the island (excluding the surrounding communities)for the reconnection of oxbows, restoration of the riparian forest, improvement of the biodiversity(Rhinau island, on the Rhine : El Yousfi et al., 2006)

Source : (Chegrani, 2007)

For the use of drinking water of the surface water, a single guideline value is available, following a study on Erdre (Brunel, 1996) :- Community where the drinking water comes from a threat major capture: the water from a river improves from a non-required quality to a sufficient quality for an emergency reserve.- Value guide: 36 € 2006/ household / year (31 to 34 €1996), to apply to households in the city where the drinking water comes from the major capture.

Final version - March 2010 22

Table 5 - Special cases for which the increase in the number of users is assumed high significance(to be applied - unless otherwise noted – to the number of visits by new users)

Use Profit per unit of additional usersFishing Salmon fishing 53,8 €2006/day of fishing (42 to 61 €1991) (See and Selune : Bonnieux and Vermersch, 1993) for a total

number of visits lower at 32 000 on the study area.Then 9 €2006/ fisher/ year (7 €1991) (See and Selune : Bonnieux and Vermersch, 1993), when the total number of visits exceeds 32 000 on the study area.Average of 47 fishing days per yearSee model for estimating the increased number of visits of Salanie et al. (2004)

Sea trout fishing 30,8 €2006/day of fishing (24 €1991) (Touques : Bonnieux and Vermersch, 1993) Average of 31 fishing days per year

Sedentary salmonids fishing (trout)

27,4 €2006/visit / fisherman (25 €2001) (Lignon du Velay : Bonnieux et al., 2002) Average of 17 visits/ fisher/ year

Classic fishing (white fishes) 12,6 €2006/visit /fisherman (12,2 €2004, confidence interval [11 - 13,4]) (Loir : Deronzier and Terra 2006)Average of 38 visits/ fisherman/ yearOthe values : 13 €2006/visit /fisherman (12,8 €2005) (Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007) – Average of 33 visits/ fisherman/ year2,8 €2006/ visit/household (2,4 €1996) (Erdre : Brunel, 1996) – Average of 80 visits/ household/ year

Parkway 16,1 €2006/visit /walker (15,6 €2004, confidence interval [14,1 - 17]) (Loir : Deronzier and Terra, 2006) Average of 43 visits/ walker/ year Other values : 15,3 €2006/visit / walker (14 €2001) (Lignon du Velay : Bonnieux et al., 2002)Average of 19 visits/ walker/ year19,6 €2006/ visit/ walker (19,3 €2005) (Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007)Average of 20 visits/ walker/ year2,8 €2006/ visit/ household (2,4 €1996) (Erdre : Brunel, 1996)Average of 80 visits/ household/ year

Kayaking Practice of water rafting(small streams in mountains)

18 €2006/visit /kayaker (15 to 21 €1994) (Sioule : Point and GIP HydrOsystemes, 1999) Average of 17 to 21 visits/ kayaker/ year

Final version - March 2010 23

Practice in flatwater(river plain)

8,7 €2006/visit /kayaker (8,4 €2004, confidence interval [6,4 - 10,4]) (Loir : Deronzier and Terra, 2006) Average of 55 visits/ kayaker / anOther value :12,8 €2006/visit / kayaker (12,6 €2005) (Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007)Average of 5 visits/ kayaker/ year

Boating 72,1 €2006/ week of boat rental (64 €1999) (Lot : Amigues, 2001) if the number of boating days in a week is 3.5.500 €2006/ week of boat rental (444 €1999) (Lot : Amigues, 2001) if the number of boating days in a week is greater than 5.

Bathing 12,2 €2006/visit / swimmer (12 €2005) (Gardon : Chegrani et al., 2007)Average of 15 visits/ swimmer/ yearOther value :18,6 €2006/person /year (16 to 21 €1996) (Erdre : Brunel, 1996)to be applied to the number of people using recreation sites of the watercourse

Source : (Chegrani, 2007)

Final version - March 2010 24

ANNEX 2 : BIBLIOGRAPHICAL RESOURCES ON THE TOPIC (PER PART)

● THE FUNCTIONS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AFFECTED BY THE MORPHOLOGICAL RESTORATION

Adam P., Debiais N., and Malavoi J.R., 2007. Manuel de restauration hydromorphologique des cours d'eau. Nanterre, Agence de l'eau Seine-Normandie, 64 p. Available on internet : http://www.eau-seine-normandie.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/Collectivite/HYDROMORPHO/01Manuel_restauration.pdf [consulté le 15/10/2009]

Agence de l'eau Adour-Garonne, 2007. Transcription des guides européens pour l'analyse économique des masses d'eau fortement modifiées. Essai d'application à l'hydroélectricité. Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n° 2, 60-67.

Amigues J.P., Arnaud F., and Bonnieux F., 2003. Evaluation des dommages dans le domaine de l’eau : contribution à la constitution d’une base de données françaises. Toulouse: INRA, 38 p. Available on internet : http://w3.rennes.inra.fr/economie/pdf/evalbonn.pdf [consulté le 15/10/2009]

AREA, and Malavoi J.R., 2003. Stratégie d'intervention de l'agence de l'eau sur les seuils en rivière. Agence de l'eau Loire-Bretagne, 135 p. Available on internet : http://www.eau-loire-bretagne.fr/espace_documentaire/documents_en_ligne/guides_milieux_aquatiques/Seuil_sommaire.pdf [consulté le 15/10/2009]

Chandresis A., Malavoi J.R., Souchon Y., Wasson J.B., and Mengin N., 2007. Le système relationnel d'audit de l'hydromorphologie des cours d'eau (SYRAH-CE) : un outil multi-échelles d'aide à la décision des cours d'eau. Ingénieries, n° 50 (Juin), 77-80.

Chandresis A., Mengin N., Malavoi J.R., Souchon Y., Wasson J.G., and Pella H., 2008. SYstème Relationnel d'Audit de l'Hydromorphologie des Cours d'Eau - PRINCIPES ET METHODES - Version V 3.1. Lyon, CEMAGREF, 81 p. Available on internet : http://www.cemagref.fr/le-cemagref/lorganisation/les-centres/lyon/ur-bely/laboratoire-dhydroecologie-quantitative/projets-nationaux/hydromorphologie-et-alterations-physiques. [consulté le 13/10/2009]

Fustec E., and Lefeuvre J.C., 2000. Fonctions et valeurs des zones humides. Paris, Dunod Environnement, 426 p.

Hervochon F., Chapon P.M., Leclainche J.C., Gilbert P., Vienne L., Vigneron T., and Leroy R., 2006. Du concept de "bon état écologique" de la directive cadre sur l'eau à l'application dans les opérations de restauration et d'entretien de rivière - Adaptation de la méthode du "réseau d'évaluation des habitats" (REH) à l'étude préalable au "contrat de restauration et d'entretien" (CRE) de la rivière Arz dans le Morbihan. Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n° 10, 47-75.

Malavoi J.R., and Adam P., 2007a. Préservation et restauration physique des cours d'eau - Aspects techniques. Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n° 2, 39-53.

Malavoi J.R., and Adam P., 2007b. Les interventions humaines et leurs impacts hydromorphologiques sur les cours d'eau. Ingénieries, n° 50, 35-48.

Malavoi J.R., and Adam P., 2007c. La restauration morphologique des cours d'eau : concepts et principes de mise en œuvre. Ingénieries, n° 50 (Juin), 49-61.

Final version - March 2010 25

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human weel-being : wetlands and water – Synthesis. 80 p. Available on internet : http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf [consulté le 17/10/2009]

Pelte T., and Stroffek S., 2007. Evaluation de l'état hydromorphologique. cas des milieux fortement modifiés. Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n° 2, 30-37.

Souchon Y., and Wasson J.B., 2007. Le bon état et le bon potentiel écologiques : la structure et le fonctionnement physiques, déterminants du fonctionnement biologique des cours d'eau. nouveaux paramètres de surveillance. Techniques Sciences Méthodes, n° 2, 21-29.

Wasson J.G., Malavoi J.R., Maridet L., Souchon Y., and Paulin L., 1998. Impacts écologiques de la chenalisation des rivières. Études : gestion des milieux aquatiques. Lyon, CEMAGREF Éditions, 158 p.

● THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Amigues J.P., Bonnieux F., Le Goffe P., and Point P., 1995. Valorisation des usages de l'eau. Poche environnement. Paris, Economica, 103 p.

Biscaut A., 2004. Analyse des méthodologies de valorisation environnementale. Agence de l'eau Rhin-Meuse, 129 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/etude_67_1197898762.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Chegrani P., 2006. Évaluer les bénéfices environnementaux sur les masses d'eau. Serie études. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 116 p. Available on internet : http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/evaluer_les_benefices_environnementaux_sur_les_masses_d_eau.pdf [consulté le 15/10/2009]

Chevassus-au-Louis B., Salles J.M., Bielsa S., Richard D., Martin G., and Pujol J.L., 2009. Approche économique de la biodiversité et des services liés aux écosystèmes - contribution à la décision publique. Paris, Centre d'analyse stratégique, 378 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_bio_v2.pdf [consulté le 1/10/2009]

Davy T. 1998. La place des outils de l’analyse en économie de l’environnement au sein d’un établissement public en charge de la décision dans le domaine de l’eau. Toulouse, 260 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/ETUDE_39-40-41-42.pdf [consulté le 8/10/2009]

Desaigues B., and Point P., 1993. Economie du patrimoine naturel - La valorisation des bénéfices de protections de l'environnement. Paris, Economica, 317 p.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human weel-being : wetlands and water – Synthesis. 80 p. Available on internet : http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf [consulté le 17/10/2009]

OCDE, 2002, Manuel d’évaluation de la biodiversité – Guide à l’intention des décideurs. Paris, OCDE, 173 p.

Rees W. E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanisation, n°4 (2), 121–130.

Final version - March 2010 26

Page T., 1977. Conservation and Economic Efficiency. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press.

Pearce D. W., 1976. The limits of cost-benefit analysis as a guide to environmental policy. Kyklos, fasc. 1. (repris dans D.W. Pearce, Economics and the Environment: Essays in Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1999).

Randall A., 1991. The value of biodiversity, Ambio. n°20 (2), 64-68.

Scherrer S. 2004. Comment évaluer les biens et services environnementaux ? Paris, La documentation française - Réponses environnement, 45 p.

Wackernagel M., Onisto L., Bello P., Linares A. C., Falfán I. S. L., García J. M., Guerrero A. I. S., and Guerrero M. G. S., 1999, National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, n°29 (3), 375-390.

● RIVERS AND WETLANDS WHERE THE VALUE OF THE HYDROMORPHOLOGY WAS STUDIED

Acharya G., and Barbier E.B., 2002. Using Domestic Water Analysis to Value Groundwater Recharge in the Hadejia-Jama'are Floodplain, Northern Nigeria. Agricultural Economics.

Acharya G. and Barbier E.B., 2000. Valuing groundwater recharge through agricultural production in the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands in northern Nigeria. Agricultural Economics, n° 22 (3), 247-259.

Adam P., Malavoi J.R., and Debiais. N., 2006. Retour d'expérience d'opérations de restauration de cours d'eau et de leurs annexes sur le bassin Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse. Lyon, Agence de l'eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse, 133 p. Available on internet : http://62.73.1.169/h2o/site/DOSSIERS_doc/rapport-restauration2.pdf [consulté le 9/10/ 2009]

Amigues J.P., 2001. Valorisation économique des usages non-énergétiques de l'eau sur le Lot. INRA LEERNA / EDF. http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/spip.php?article214&id_rubrique=66&id_etude=32 [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Arènes J.F., 1998. Évaluation des bénéfices non marchands du programme de restauration et d'entretien des cours d'eau du bassin de l'Arbas, programme subventionné par l'Agence de l'Eau Adour-Garonne. Rapport de stage, Agence de l'eau Adour-Garonne, 63 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/ETUDE_33_complet.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Armand C., Bonnieux F., and Changeux T., 2002. Évaluation économique des plans de gestion piscicoles. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic, n° 365/366, 565-578.

Aulong S., and Maton L., 2009. Evaluation des bénéfices environnementaux liés à l'amélioration de l'état écologique de la Turbine aval. Montpellier, BRGM, 135 p.

Birol E., Karousakis K., and Koundouri P., 2006. Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management : A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science of The Total Environment, n° 365 (1-3), 105-122.

Bonnieux F., Guerrier C., and Fouet J.P., 2002. Valorisation économique des usages de l'eau sur le Lignon en Velay. Rennes, INRA - Unité d'économie et sociologie rurales, 17 p. Available

Final version - March 2010 27

on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/ETUDE_23-17.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Bonnieux F., and Vermersch D., 1993. Bénéfices et coûts de la protection de l'eau : l'application de l'approche contingente à la pêche sportive . Revue d'économie politique, n° 103, 132-151.

Brunel A., 1996. Application empirique : évaluation des bénéfices liés à la réalisation d'une réserve d'eau potable à partir de l'Erdre et évaluation des bénéfices touristiques liés à l'amélioration de la qualité de l'eau de l'Erdre. Mémoire de DEA, 92 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/ETUDE_16-03-24-28_complet.pdf [consulté le 8/10/2009]

Brouwer, R. et al., 1999. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change , n° 1 (1), 47-57.

Bureau d'études AScA. 1996. Evaluation économique des services rendus par les zones humides. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/spip.php?article214&id_rubrique=66&id_etude=43 [consulté le 8/10/2009]

Cardoch, L., and Day, J., 2001. Energy Analysis of Non market Values of the Mississippi Delta. Environmental Management, n° 28 (5), 677-685.

Chegrani P., 2006. Évaluer les bénéfices environnementaux sur les masses d'eau. Serie études. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 116 p. Available on internet : http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/evaluer_les_benefices_environnementaux_sur_les_masses_d_eau.pdf [consulté le 15/10/2009]

Chegrani P., 2007. Évaluer les bénéfices issus du changement des eaux. Collection études et synthèses. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 13 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/07089pc_Evaluer_benefices__changement_etat-eaux.pdf [consulté le 8/10/2009]

Chegrani P., and Terra S., 2006. Bilan du stage "revue de bibliographie de la base EVRI, le cas de l'eau". Paris, MEDD – D4E, 46 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/06188pc_-_bilan_stage_evri_eau.pdf [consulté le 8/10/2009]

Chegrani P., Terra S., and Fleuret A., 2007. Analyse coûts-avantage de la restauration d'une rivière : le cas du Gardon aval. Collection "Études et synthèses". Paris, MEDAD – D4E, 61 p. Available on internet : http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/D4E_200707_AcaRestaurationRiviere_rapport.pdf [consulté le 1/10/2009]

Chevassus-au-Louis B., Salles J.M., Bielsa S., Richard D., Martin G., and Pujol J.L., 2009. Approche économique de la biodiversité et des services liés aux écosystèmes - contribution à la décision publique. Paris, 378 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_bio_v2.pdf [consulté le 1/10/2009]

Connelly N.A., Knuth B.A., and Kay, D.L., 2002. Public Support for Ecosystem Restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Environmental Management, n° 29(4), 467-476.

Deronzier P., and Terra S., 2006. Etude sur la valorisation des aménités du Loir. Série Etudes. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 84 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/etu/etude_55_1156930176.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Final version - March 2010 28

Eaufrance (portail de l'eau Etat/ONEMA). Économie : L'accès aux données économiques du système d'information sur l'eau. http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/ [consulté le 1/10/2009]

El Yousfi H., Nicolaï S., and Casin P., 2006. Étude économique sur les coûts et bénéfices environnementaux dans le domaine de l'eau : l'île de Rhinau. Rapport de stage, Agence de l'eau Rhin-Meuse. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/base_dommages/resumes/resume_70_1165833533.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Gowan C., Stephenson, K., and Shabman L., 2006. The role of ecosystem valuation in environmental decision making: Hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the Elwha River. Ecological Economics, n° 56(4), 508-523.

Hitzhusen F.J. 2007. Economic valuation of river systems. Edward Elgar Publishing, 217 p. Available on internet : http://books.google.fr/books?id=1C04ZwUFEaIC [consulté le 13/10/2009]

Holmes T.P. et al., 2004. Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics, n° 49(1), 19-30.

INRA, 1992. Mesures agri-environnementales et valeur de protection des zones humides. Rennes. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/spip.php?article214&id_rubrique=66&id_etude=36 [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Large A., 2008. Justification des dérogations économiques à l’atteinte du bon état des eaux en Seine-Normandie - Approches à différentes échelles. Nanterre, Agence de l'eau Seine-Normandie, 93 p.

Lesieur C. 2007. L'analyse socio-économique des projets hydrauliques : le cas du barrage de Poutès (Lettre Évaluation n°13 - Septembre 2007) - Ministère de l'Ecologie, de l'Energie, du Développement durable et de la Mer. MEDDM. Available on internet : http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/L-analyse-socio-economique-des.html [consulté le 8/10/2009]

Loomis J., 2002. Quantifying recreation use values from removing dams and restoring free-flowing rivers : A contingent behavior travel cost demand model for the Lower Snake River. Water Resour. Res., n° 38 (6), 1066.

Loomis J., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K. and Covich A., 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin : results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, n° 33, 103-117.

Medellin-Azuara J., Lund J.R., and Howitt, R.E., 2007. Water Supply Analysis for Restoring the Colorado River Delta, Mexico. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, n° 133(5), 462-471. Available on internet : http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/papers/MedellinJWRPM2007.pdf [consulté le 5/11/2009]

Ojeda M.I., Mayer A.S., and Solomon B.D., 2008. Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecological Economics, n° 65 (1), 155-166.

Point, P., and GIP HydrOsystèmes, 1999. La valeur économique des hydrosystèmes - Méthodes et modèles d'évaluation des sytèmes délivrés. Economica. Paris, 190 p.

Final version - March 2010 29

Salanié J., Le Goffe P., and Surry Y., 2004. Evaluation des bénéfices procurés par le démantèlement de barrages hydroélectriques : le cas de la pêche au saumon sur la Sélune. Ingénieries, n° 39, 65-78.

Spörri C., Borsuk M., Peters I., and Reichert P., 2007. The economic impacts of river rehabilitation: A regional Input–Output analysis. Ecological Economics, n° 62 (2), 341-351.

Terra S., 2005a. Guide de bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre de la méthode des coûts de transport. Série Méthode. Paris, MEDD -D4E, 40 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/05-M05_Guide_de_BP_pour_la_mise_en_oeuvre_de_la_MCT.pdf [consulté le 7/10/2009]

Terra S., 2005b. Guide de bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre des études de valorisation environnementale : aide à la rédaction de cahiers des charges. Série Méthode. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 31p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/05-M02_Guide_general.pdf [consulté le 1er octobre 2009]

Terra S., 2005c. Guide de bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre de la méthode d'évaluation contingente. Série Méthode. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 83 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/05-M04_Guide_de_BP_pour_la_mise_en_oeuvre_de_la_MEC.pdf [consulté le 1/10/2009]

Terra S., 2005d. Guide des bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre de la méthode des prix hédonistes. Série Méthode. Paris, MEDD – D4E, 35 p. Available on internet : http://www.economie.eaufrance.fr/IMG/pdf/05-M01_Guide_de_BP_pour_la_mise_en_oeuvre_de_la_MPH.pdf [consulté le 1/10/2009]

Turner R.K., Bergh J.C.J.M.V.D., and Brouwer, R., 2003. Managing wetlands, Edward Elgar Publishing, 318 p. Available on internet : http://books.google.fr/books?id=lZ4K2Jnl-AEC [consulté le 14/10/2009]

Varady R.G., Hankins K.B., Kaus A., Young E., and Merideth R., 2001. to the Sea of Cortes: nature, water, culture, and livelihood in the Lower Colorado River basin and delta-an overview of issues, policies, and approaches to environmental restoration. Journal of Arid Environments, n° 49, 195-209.

Zhongmin X., Guodong C., Zhiqiang Z., Zhiyong S., and Loomis J., 2003. Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecological Economics, n° 44, 345-358.

Final version - March 2010 30