DENMARKAssessing Economic Benefits of Good Ecological Status under the EU Water Framework Directive. Testing practical guidelines in

Odense River basin

CASE STUDY REPORT

Illustration: Maps of Odense River basin and Odense River used for the valuation in the Danish case study

.B. Hasler, S.L. Brodersen, L.P. Christensen, T. Christensen, A.

Dubgaard, H.E.Hansen, M. Kataria, L.Martinsen, C. J. Nissen, A. F. Wulff

12 March 2009

WP4 – TESTING OF THE PRACTICAL GUIDELINES IN REPRESENTATIVE EUROPEAN PILOT RIVER BAINS. WP Leaders: Joaquín Andreu and Manuel Pulido, Technical Univ. of Valencia, Spain

2

Table of Contents

Policy summary………. ..................................................................................................................3

Acknowledgement ...........................................................................................................................5

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................6

2. Description of the case study .......................................................................................................6

2.1. Location of the case study area, including sampling area 6

2.2. The sampling 8

2.3 Water system characteristics 9

2.4 Short characterization of water use and water users 11

3. Set up of the survey....................................................................................................................15

3.1. Questionnaire design (common) 16

4. Valuation results ........................................................................................................................24

4.1. Non-respondent characteristics 24

4.2. Respondent characteristics and sample representativeness 26

4.2. Public perception of water management problems 30

4.3. Estimated economic values for water resource management 31

4.4. Factors explaining economic values for water resource management 32

4.5. Total Economic Value 39

5. Conclusions................................................................................................................................42

6. Best practice recommendations .................................................................................................44

References......................................................................................................................................48

Appendix A. The questionnaire (In Danish)..................................................................................50

Appendix B. The generic water quality ladder used in the common valuation in AQUAMONEY

........................................................................................................................................................73

3

Policy summary

The study. The main objective of this study was to estimate the benefits of improvements of the ecological status of Odense River according to the water framework directive. The survey focused on households’ recreational use of water bodies and their willingness to pay for improvements of the ecological status of Odense River.

An internet survey was conducted on 754 households in Funen and the municipalities of the Southern Danish region in the summer of 2008. The valuation methods used are contingent valuation and choice experiments, and the aim of the valuation is to capture recreational use values as well as non‐use values.

The improvements valued were good and very good water quality, and the initial conditions of the river are moderate water quality, according to the classification in the Water Framework Directive. As a part of the study we paid attention to evaluate at what distance from the improved river households willingness to pay falls to zero, as this estimation is necessary to determine the population who benefits from the effects of the measures under the Water Framework Directive in this particular river

The reportIn this case study report we consider the Odense River, being the main river in the Odense River basin at Funen. As part of a wider Danish study the benefits of similar improvements of the 10 largest lakes at Funen, Odense Fjord and the whole river catchment are also considered, using the same questionnaire and valuation design as in the Odense River case study. Valuation data will be available in 2009 for all these water bodies (illustrated on the cover), as well as for Roskilde fjord at Zealand in the eastern part of Denmark, where the same design is applied for valuation of the Water Framework Directive effects.

Valuation of the benefits of the Water Framework Directive. The present study is the first economic valuation of the benefits of attaining “good and very good ecological status” in water bodies in Denmark.

ResultsWillingness to pay per household per year, including sensitivity to scope: The sensitivity to scope is tested by asking of the WTP for improvements of the whole river versus one stretch of the river. The stretch is located outside Odense city, and is 15 km out of the total of 60 km. With the contingent valuation method the mean willingness to pay for an improvement in Odense River to good ecological status is estimated for a short improvement (15 km out of Odense River which is approx. 60 km long) to be 323 DKK

4

(43 EURO) per household per year. For the large improvement (the whole river) the equivalent is estimated to be 479 DKK (64 EURO) per household per year.

Hence, households’ willingness to pay is sensitive to the magnitude of the improvement, i.e. whether the whole river is improved or only a minor part. However, the internal scope is much stronger than the external, which is tested by introducing the short and the large improvement first in two split samples, and subsequently asking about the long/short improvement. The respondents answering the long improvement first and then the short have a significantly lower WTP for the smallest improvement, while this difference is not significant for the other part of the sample receiving the smallest improvement first.

With the CE method the mean WTP for obtaining “good” valuing the river in three stretches is estimated to be 1053 DKK (141 EURO) per household per year for the whole river (329 + 467 + 257DKK). To obtain “very good” quality of the water the mean WTP is estimated to be 1430 DKK (192 EURO) per household per year (582 + 545 +303 DKK). Valuing the whole river at once gives a mean WTP, for “good” status, 430 DKK (58 EURO) per household per year. Surprisingly there is a lower estimated WTP for a higher water quality as to obtain “very good” status the WTP is 423 DKK (57 EURO) per household per year. These results imply no scope sensitivity as the respondents are willing to pay the same amount for 1/3 of the river as for the whole river.

Households in Denmark currently pay on average DKK 4000/yr (533 Euro) per household for water and sanitation.

Distance decay and spatial extent of willingness to pay. Estimated with the contingent valuation method the willingness to pay drops by 1.53 DKK/kilometre for the short improvement and 2.31 DKK/kilometre for the large improvement. This means that for the short improvement the radius of households affected by the improvement is 144 km, while it is 212 km for the large improvement. The larger distance for the large improvement despite the faster drop, is caused by the higher mean WTP.

Total Willingness to pay: The total economic value (TEV) is calculated using the estimated distance decay function. Alternatively, aggregation could have been donewithin the administrative/political region. For the CV, the TEV for the short improvementto obtain a good quality, is estimated to be between 138-150 million DKK per year (18-20 million EURO). For the large improvement the TEV is estimated to be between 200-223 million DKK per year (27-30 million EURO). For the CE, the TEV is more than 3 times as large as for the CV to obtain a good quality, 489 million DKK per year (66 million EURO). To obtain a very good quality (using CE) the TEV is 664 million DKK per year (89 million EURO).

5

Berit Hasler (NERI, Aarhus University) led the Danish case study and carried out the analyses together with Louise Martinsen (NERI), Tove Christensen (FOI), Carsten Junker Nissen (FOI) and Alex Dubgaard (FOI) (study design), Sisse Liv Brodersen (NERI), Anders Fonnesbech Wulff (NERI) and Leise Pil Christensen (NERI) (CV-estimations) and Mitesh Kataria (NERI) (CE-estimations). Gregor Levin (NERI) and Sickan Flindt Ibsen (NERI) designed the maps and carried out the GIS-based distance calculations.Henriette Engel Hansen (NERI) assisted carrying out the pilot survey, and used the pilot survey data for Choice experiment estimations in her master thesis in economics (Hansen, 2008, Copenhagen University). Leise Pil Christensen (NERI) used the CV data from the main survey for her bachelor thesis in economics (Copenhagen University).

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge Stig Eggert Pedersen, Harley Madsen and Susanne Thomsen from the Environmental Centre Odense for taking the time to discuss study site characteristics with us, visiting Odense River and fjord with us, providing data and information on the water quality in Odense River Basin and in particular Odense River, as well as from valuable comments on the web-survey and the water quality description, the illustrations and the maps.

We will also acknowledge Jacob Ladenburg (AKF) for valuable discussions on the choice experiment part of the study, and for commenting this case study report, and Bernd Münier who helped us with the GIS work.

We have benefitted from the funding of this project from both EU FP6 and from the Danish Directorate for Foods.

Thanks to all the members of the team working on the common survey design for water quality within AQUAMONEY. A special thank to Roy Brouwer (IVM) and Ian Bateman(UEA) for inspiration and coordination.

6

1. Introduction

The main objective of the case study in the Odense River Basin (ORB) is to value the benefits of obtaining Water Framework Directive objectives and to test guidelines for valuation according to the WFD objectives. We have delimited the study to focus on Odense River being the main river in the Odense River Basin. The case study is part of a larger Danish study with the objective to value WFD effects in the whole ORB as well as in different main water bodies within the River Basin – i.e. the main river (Odense River), the ten largest lakes and the fjord (Odense fjord).

The reasons for valuing the benefits of the proposed changes in surface water quality in the ORB are to:

1) assess the overall benefits of WFD changes in this river basin and compare them to the costs for obtaining the necessary changes. Hereby cost-benefit assessments will be made.2) contribute to the basis for deciding on whether exemptions from the WFD- objectives can be built on cost-benefit/NPV-assessments.

We focus on improvements in the environmental quality of the surface water, and the description of the current quality as well as the WFD objectives are built on data and descriptions from the Environmental Centre in Funen, who are responsible for the WFD implementation in this river basin.

The present quality of most of the water bodies in the River Basin is of poor to moderate quality, and improvements to good and very good conditions are valued. At the time when the survey design was decided and implemented the WFD objectives were not yet decided as it took longer than expected to reach an agreement on the objectives of the intercalibration process among the EU countries.

2. Description of the case study

2.1. Location of the case study area, including sampling area

The Odense River Basin is – together with 13 other European catchments – a pilot area and test study for implementation of the WFD. As part of this test study, water bodies (surface water, wetlands, and groundwater) have been characterised and the pollutant loading of groundwater and surface water assessed including the impact of human activities on water status.

Odense River basin (ORB) is located on the Island of Funen, the second largest Danish Island.

7

Figure 1. The Odense River basin

Map 1. The ORB

Lake Bryrup

Odense Fiord

Odense city

Odense River

8

The catchment area which constitutes ORB comprises an area of 1.046 km2. The area is predominantly rural but contains one major city – Odense - with a population amounting to 180,000 citizens. In comparison the substantial rural area at Funen and the closest small islands are inhabited by approximately 64,000 people; in total the area of Funen is inhabited by 242,000 citizens.

2.2. The sampling

As we expect that the beneficiaries of improvements of Odense River are located both inside and outside the river basin, we sampled across the whole island of Funen in the pilot survey. This sampling did not result in a significantly declining WTP with distance,however, and it was decided to sample in a larger area for the main survey to assess the potential distance decay. The sampling area for the main survey was the area of Funen and the municipalities in the southern part of the South Danish region, being close to Funen. Funen and these municipalities are divided by a bridge (the “Lillebæltsbro”, the Little Belt bridge), but as apposed to the “Storebæltsbro” (the Great belt bridge) the Lillebæltsbro is not tolled. Because the Storebæltsbro is a toll-bridge (price approx 75 Euro for each trip) we decided not to sample at the area on eastern side of Storebælt, i.e.the island of Zealand. The sampling area for the pilot and for the main survey is shown onmap 2 and 3 below. The sampling is further described in section 3.

Figure 2. The sampling areas for the main and the pilot surveys

Map 2 Main Survey sampling area

Map 3 Pilot survey sampling area

9

The sampling area for the main survey encompasses the 19 municipalitie Assens, Kerteminde, Odense, Nordfyn, Ærø, Billund, Tønder, Fredericia, Vejle, Vejen, Middelfart, Faaborg-Midtfyn, Nyborg, Svendborg, Langeland, Haderslev, Sønderborg Kolding and Hedensted.

The case study questionnaire was submitted on the internet by the GALLUP institute. The GALLUP panel consists of 35,000 individuals all over Denmark, and GALLUP was asked to sample in all minimum 700 respondents (households). In all the questionnaire was submitted to 2001 persons, and the survey sampling was stopped at 754 responses, resulting in a response rate of 37.68 pct. The relatively low response rate can be explained by a need to send the questionnaire to a large number of households who did not respond because of summer holiday.

2.3 Water system characteristics

The aquatic environment within the whole ORB comprises a significant number of aquifers and surface water bodies in the categories of watercourses and lakes, as well as the fjord: ORB includes approx. 1100 km of open watercourse and 2 600 lakes and ponds (>100 m2). Only 21 lakes occupy an area of more than 3 ha each (County of Funen 2005a). These water bodies are subject to varying pressures to their environmental state. The pressures have been identified and when possible quantified in connection with the WFD prescribed article 5 analyses.

The status and risk of not fulfilling the requirements of good ecological status in 2015 are summarised in table

Table 1. Characterisation of the water bodies in the Odense River basinWater body Water at risk Reason for not fulfilling objectives,

main pressures

Rivers (incl Odense River) 96% Physical regulation of river and river valley due to agricultural demand for land

Waste water outlets, storm water

Lakes 86% (75 high risk, 15 at risk because of lack of data)

Nutrient losses from agriculture, europhication

Coastal waters, Odense fjord 100% Nutrient losses from agriculture, eutrophication. Hazardous substances.

Groundwater 50% Nitrate load, hazardous substances. High abstraction level.

Source: Modified after Odense Environmental centre, Harley Madsen

10

The wetlands and watercourses have undergone major physical changes and many of them have disappeared in recent decades. Restoration of these areas is one of the measures to obtain good quality of the water-bodies in the basin. The watercourses of the ORB constitute major pollution pathways from the source of pollution to the fjord, and further to the sea. Apart from serving as transporters of pollution watercourses also serve as habitats for flora and fauna, as well as human use. The relatively low retention period of water in a given stretch of the watercourses makes them less vulnerable to pollution with phosphorous- and nitrate pollution than other water bodies, and the environmental derogation of watercourses originating from changes to the physical and hydrological attributes of the watercourse is more significant. Based on the division in fauna classes currently applied to watercourses as a measure of environmental quality and the interpretation of what ecologically good status is equal to in this index, the watercourses within the ORB have been investigated and their environmental status determined. The ORB contains approximately 931 km natural watercourses divided in three types where type 1 is the smallest and type 3 the largest. Odense River is approximately 60 km long, belonging to class 3 and the largest river in the river basin. Odense River is classified as poor to moderate quality; most of the river is in a moderate state. The state can be seen from figure 3 below, where the blue colour indicate very good status, the green colour good status, the yellow moderate and the red poor status. As can be seen the river does not fulfil the WFD requirements of good ecological status.

Figure 3. The current quality of Odense River (Source: Odense env. centre, map made by Gregor Levin, NERI).

The environmental state of the lakes within the ORB is in general below the requirements of good ecological status stated in the WFD; and the quality of most of the lakes is poor. NERI estimates that nitrate concentration can not be in excess of 1 mg/L if a lake is to hold good ecological status (Søndergård et al. 2003). Furthermore phosphorous content of a lake should not exceed 0.05 mg/L in shallow lakes and 0.025 mg/L in deep lakes if

11

good ecological state is to persevere. Due to extensive diffuse nitrate and phosphorus pollution mainly originating from agriculture and point source pollution originating from sewage, most lakes experience a nitrate and phosphorous content significantly larger than what is specified as a requirement to uphold good ecological status. Although sewage is less responsible for the pollution than was the case before the first action plans were contemplated it is still a significant source of pollution as rural waste treatment has not been updated at the same speed as seen in urban areas. Phosphorous pollution influence the ecological state of a lake much more than is the case for most other water body types due to the long retention periods of water present in lakes (County of Funen 2005a).

Odense fjord is by far the largest surface water body in the river basin and may be categorised within the ORB as a terminal recipient of nearly all waterborne pollution which have not been remedied artificially or naturally. The fjord is subject to a substantial load of a multitude of polluting substances originating from both agricultural lands in the entire river basin as well as several major industries including Shipping and Shipyard activities as well as waste dumps and other minor activities. Odense fjord occupies an area of 6500 ha, divided in an inner and outer part with diverse physical attributes. Both sections of the fjord are in general shallow but the innermost part is especially so with an average registered depth of only 0.8 meters (County of Funen 2005d). The fjord resembles a large estuary of the Odense River more than a typical Danish fjord. The retention period of water is thus rather short (17 days) and the fjord holds some unique physical qualities which supports a large range of species. Thus, the fjord constitutes an important habitat for birds and is as such subject to extensive environmental legislation independent of the WFD. Despite prior environmental legislation recent investigations in relation to the article 5 analyses have shown that the ecological status is significantly below good for the fjord. Most of the fjord is of poor ecological quality.

2.4 Short characterization of water use and water users

HouseholdsHouseholds consume drinking water from groundwater in the area, discharge wastewater and use the water bodies in the basin for a number of recreational purposes. From a value point of view, it is possible to determine household sector expenses for drinking water and for wastewater disposal and treatment.

The expenses for consumption of drinking water are calculated on the basis of a distribution of the total production costs in relation to the household sector’s share of the consumption. The expenses for drinking water also include a charge to cover groundwater mapping by the Counties. The household sector’s contribution to this mapping is expected to amount to approx. DKK 2 million. Expenses have not been calculated for actual pollution-limiting measures to protect the groundwater, measures that are part of the current planning of the future groundwater protection initiatives.

With respect to wastewater, there are no immediately available calculations of the amount discharged apportioned by consumer groups. This expense is therefore estimated as households pay for disposal of the same amount of wastewater as their water

12

consumption. The expenses for wastewater include part of the wastewater levy, which is determined by actual discharges of BOD5, N and P.

Based on the combined national proceeds and the proportion of the population inhabiting the basin, the levy can be estimated at just over DKK 10 million. Of this the households pay just under half. Household expenses for wastewater disposal comprise almost two thirds of the expenses for the actual services to this tax on water consumption of DKK 5/m3 which, together with VAT, comprises one third of the total costs. If the calculated costs per m3 are compared with water fees it should be noted, for example, that the meter charge helps cover the costs, and that the variable part of the fee for drinking water will be less than that stated in the table. The cost of one m3 of water is typically DKK 4—6.On average households pay 4,000 DKK per year for water consumption and wastewater disposal.

Industry/servicesLike the households, industry/services use drinking water and dispose wastewater. A small number of enterprises in the basin have their own water supply, and a couple of them have their own wastewater outfall. To this should be added Fynsværket Combined Heat and Power plant, which uses large amounts of fjord water as cooling water. This heated water is subsequently led out into the lower reach of the River Odense.

In addition to the above-mentioned expenses, a minor fee for the protection of groundwater against soil contamination is included. In this respect, a rough estimate has been made of the expenses for remediating contaminated sites that are paid by members of the public. This cost has been ascribed to industry/services, even though a minor share might be defrayed by households.

These expenses are placed in relation to the industry/services production value. This measure is an attempt to determine the proportion of the sectors’ total production costs comprised by water and wastewater services, and hence how important water use is as a production factor. It should be noted that industry’s expenses for complying with various discharge criteria are not included. Such expenses are not calculated in Denmark as they are often process-integrated, and it is thus quite random how much is ascribed to environmental requirements and what is an operation-related improvement in production.

The relative expenses for industry alone are somewhat higher since water and wastewater together account for approx. 0.6% of the production value, as compared with 0.1% for the service sectors alone.

Agriculture and market gardensAgriculture is a central sector in the analysis of the existing water use in that it accounts for the greatest proportion of nutrient loading of surface waters and groundwater in the basin. The environmental pressure is an unintentional side effect of the intensive production. The calculations of agricultural expenses associated with water use include an estimate of the annual expenses associated with pollution-limiting activities. First and

13

foremost, these encompass expenses associated with the implementation of the nationwide Action Plan on the Aquatic Environment II.

Agriculture uses water as a necessary input to both livestock and crop production. The sector primarily uses water abstracted from the public waterworks in livestock production. Field irrigation is primarily based on individual abstraction wells, and accounts for approx. 50 percent of combined water consumption by agriculture and market gardens in Odense River Basin.

In addition, drainage measures have been or are being carried out in the form of the drying- out of wetlands, watercourse regulation, drainage and watercourse maintenance in order to optimize agricultural production and maximize the size of the area suitable for cultivation. At the same time, these measures enhance pressure on the environment due to a reduction in the maturation capacity of the soil. Expenses for these drainage measures are paid for by agriculture with respect to wetland drainage (pump and dyke associations), and by the Counties and Municipalities with respect to watercourse maintenance.

Expenses associated with wastewater are estimated on the basis of just under 2 000 farms in the basin. The latter are assumed to be connected to an emptying scheme for sewage sludge from the individual mechanical treatment facilities, while at the same time paying the wastewater levy of DKK 3.8 per m3. These expenses each correspond to approx.DKK 1 million per year. The expenses for the pesticide tax have been calculated from the proportion of arable land in Odense River Basin relative to that in Funen County as a whole and the total tax proceeds.

Agriculture’s own expenses for their agri-environmental measures account for just below15 percent of the sector’s total expenses immediately related to water use in Odense River Basin. Expenses for environment-related green taxes (tax on pesticides) account for 21percent of the total expenses. Relatively, the expenses for water use comprise a higher proportion of agricultural market garden production value than is the case with industry/services. The percentage is still relatively small, though.

The consumptive non market use values related to the water bodies in the river basin, which is in focus for the valuation within this case study, comprise recreation, both bathing waters and fishing waters. The following maps and tables indicate the localisation of these sites.

Recreational fisheries: The map shows localities suitable for recreational fisheries at the island of Funen. Apparently both the coast and the Odense River have good locations for anglers.

14

Figure 4. Map of suitable fishing locations (www.visitdenmark.dk)

Bathing resorts/beaches (58 results). The map in figure 5 indicates the bathing resorts at the island of Funen, these are apparently located mainly at the coast.

Figure 5. Map of bathing locations (www.visitdenmark.dk)

In summary, little is known about the value of the non-marketed water uses in the ORB as there is no prior valuation studies carried out in this area. There is therefore no knowledge of whether the costs are disproportionate to the benefits of the WFD improvements.

15

3. Set up of the survey

There are in all 5 splits in the Odense River Basin study, where two splits are used as basis for this case study report.

The split sample approach was chosen to enable 1) assessments of different water bodies within the river basin: the Odense River, the ten largest lakes in the river basin, and Odense Fjord2) the whole river basin.

In these split samples maps were used to show differences in water quality, later sections describes this. In addition to the “map” split samples a choice experiment split was added using a more traditional/conventional study design than employed in the common valuation design. Emphasis was paid to the presentation of quality changes and scenarios using maps in the common valuation design. The traditional split sample used verbal descriptions and a choice table describing alternative choices and the attributes and their levels. This split used a contingent valuation question identical to the map-split continent valuation question.

Each of the 5 splits embraced 350 answers as a minimum. As mentioned before we use the river split (including the river-traditional split) for this case study report. The traditional river and the mapped river splits are only differing when it comes to the design of the choice experiments, as the river split use maps for these and is compatible to the designs used for the CE in UK and Norway. The traditional CE is more compatible to the CE design used in Belgium and Holland.

We have focused on the valuation of Odense River as this enables comparisons of the results to the other river case studies in AQUAMONEY.

The questionnaire was composed of questions that were common to all the water qualitycase studies in the AQUAMONEY project, and some questions specific to the Danishcase study. The specific Danish questions were all asked after the valuation questions to avoid bias comparing results with the other AQUAMONEY studies, and in the benefit transfer. As in many of the other case studies the questionnaires in the Danish study composed both CV and CE questions. The CV questions were asked before the CE questions.

Furthermore, the Danish case study was conducted as a web based survey using the internet panel of the professional survey institute GALLUP 12. The questionnaire was carefully tested by focus groups, individual interviews and a pilot test.

1 There is a well-known discussion in the literature about different data collection methods. It is not possible to come to a general conclusion about what data collection method is the best one as they have there own pros and cons.

16

The hypotheses we want to test by the study, within each of the splits are:

Distance decay: WTP is distance dependent, but the hypotheses is that distance dependency /decay of WTP is significant for users, but not for non-users.

Use and non-use values: WTP is significantly higher for users than non-users. For recreational users WTP are significantly higher for users than non-users. Users of Odense River have a significantly higher WTP from improvements of Odense River than users of other rivers

Sensitivity to scope: WTP is significantly higher for an improvement from yellow to blue than from yellow to green. WTP for an improvement of the whole river is higher than for a shorter stretch, but WTP is decreasing for an improvement at the margin.

The WTP for imprivements close to Odense city is higher than the WTP for improvements of the other stretches.

Policy relevance: We will estimate cost of actions to improve river quality, as well as the quality of the other water bodies. The results should be used in a CBA to assess the net benefits of actions upstream versus downstream. This is the policy relevance of dividing into sub-water bodies like the stretches.

3.1. Questionnaire design (common)

As mentioned above the Odense River survey was conducted in July and August 2008, and was sent out to in all 2100 households. A total of 754 responses were collected using two different survey versions. Both versions of the surveys were sent to people living within a radius of maximum 100 km from Odense River. GALLUP secured a geographically proportional sampling for both splits inside the radius. In both survey versions (splits) a water quality ladder is used to explain the different water quality options and the effects of water quality on the conditions for fish and plants, on the visibility of the water and on the recommended use of the water. As apparent from figure 6 each of the quality levels are linked to a colour.

Being part of the “Common valuation design” in the water quality group in AQUAMONEY the questionnaire comprised

a) Introduction and background questions,

2 The panel consists of approx. 35000 individuals all over Denmark and the panel is representative for the Danish population. The panelists have been contacted by GALLUP and the panel is thus not self-recorded, hereby decreasing the risk of self-selection bias.

17

b) CV questions; for short and long improvementc) Follow up question to CV questionsd) Introduction to CEe) CE questionsf) Follow up questions to CEg) Socio economic questions

A number of socio-economic characteristics of the respondent panel pre-recruited byTNS-Gallup was known prior to the survey. They were left out of the questionnaire, but are included in the common-design dataset. Therefore it is also possible to get this kind of information for the non-respondents.

The present quality of Odense River is as mentioned classified as moderate in the current situation, i.e. the water quality is rather highly affected by human activity. This baseline is presented to the respondents before the contingent valuation questions. All survey split versions the CV questions are asked before the CE questions. The respondents are asked whether this quality description conforms with their own perception of the quality of the water, cf. figure 6.

The water quality of Odense River, both the present quality and the quality presented in the scenarios (choice sets) are described for the respondents using a water quality ladder encompassing pictures, symbols and text, common for the water quality group studies in AQUAMONEY. The pictures, symbols, and text describe and illustrate the visibility of the water in four states of quality, conditions for fish and plants, the potential for using the river for fishing (coarse and game fishing), for bathing, boating and bird watching.

The four quality classes are indicated by colours, where blue is the very good condition, and red the bad conditions. Green indicates good conditions, while yellow indicates moderate (status quo). The water quality in the status quo situation is described using data from the Environmental Centre in Odense, as this centre is the responsible authority for monitoring Odense River and associated waters.

The full questionnaire can be seen in appendix A, and the different parts are explained below after the description of the pilot survey.

The pilot study

The pilot was submitted in December 2007 (N = 350). 10 respondents from the pilot test were subsequently interviewed individually about their understanding of the scenarios, resulting in a slight simplification of the information provided and the choice sets. The final design of the questionnaire was decided using the experiences from the tests, summarised below.

The pilot test study comprised the above mentioned types of questions. Besides the Contingent Valuation questions and the Choice Experiment choice sets the questionnaire consisted of questions that should deduce the respondents’ attitude towards the nature and

18

water bodies on Funen, use and non-use of Odense River, distance to Odense River and certainty of their reply to in all 12 choice sets. The questionnaire was sent to people living on Funen by GALLUP. These people were part of GALLUP’s panel group. GALLUPclaimed that this group was representative of the population of Funen in regard to gender, age, education level and geography.

359 people participated in the pilot study of which 344 answers was usable. It turned out that the 344 respondents were not representatively distributed according to the socio-economic variables gender, age, education level, household income and household size according to the population of Funen. The respondents was scattered all over Funen with the main emphasis in the greater towns and with a relatively short distance to Odense River.

In the pilot study the 60 km of Odense River was divided into 11 stretches according to the stretches for the environmental centre monitoring of the water quality of the river. Only one of the stretches has a good ecological status. The rest of the river has a moderate to poor ecological status. The conclusion on this design issue was that this division into stretches was too detailed and too cognitively demanding for the respondents, and it was decided to reduce the number of stretches from 11 to 3.

Further it appeared from the pilot that there was a sort of selection bias in the survey both in the panel group and in the sample. This resulted from the fact that both the panel group and the sample were not representatively distributed on the socio-economic variables. In the main survey it was therefore decided not to mention that the survey theme was water quality to avoid self selection bias from respondents being more interested in (aquatic) environment than the average. Moreover in analysing the descriptive part of the questionnaire it was clear that the respondents acted rational in the 12 choice sets, because they had the price level in their considerations when they selected their preferred alternative. There were 241 users and 103 non-users of Odense River in the sample. The average WTP per household per year was 2,020 DKK for implementing the WFD (good quality), corresponding to a total yearly willingness to pay of 432 mio. DKK aggregating over the population of Funen. The average WTP per household per year was 2,116 DKK for implementing a mix of good and very good quality as required by the local environmental targets.

Furthermore the analysis found that the users on average had a higher value of implementing the WFD in Odense River irrespective of how it is carried through than the non-users. In regard to the socio-economic variables it turned out that women in general had a higher yearly WTP per household for the two scenarios than men. It appeared that the yearly WTP per household for the two scenarios did not increase with income. As regards the distance to Odense River it looks like there is some distance decay effects for people living within a distance of 20 km to Odense River, i.e. a decreasing WTP with distance up to 20 km from the river. The respondents living more than 20 km from the river have however a higher yearly WTP per household. These results motivated the choice of a larger sample region than the region used for the pilot.

19

The pilot study is fully documented in Heriette Engel Hansens master thesis, unpublished.

The main study – introduction to water qualities

As mentioned a water quality ladder was used for the illustration, description and information of the different water qualities the river can attain. The ladder contains both pictures pictograms and text to ensure that information is provided whatever method one prefers.

From focus groups it was acknowledged that different people use these different types of information, and that it was appreciated that we presented the different types. Before the ladder was shown, the respondents were informed about what type of information they would get, and after the ladder and before the valuation questions they were informed about budget constraints. No cheap talk was added because it was decided to leave the cheap talk out in the common AQUAMONEY design.

20

Highest quality

This picture indicates a river in its highest quality. The water is suitable for boating, angling and swimming. The water is suitable for fish, plant and bird species being present under natural riverconditions.

This picture indicates a river where the water is suitble for boating, swimming and angling, even though the most pollution sensitive fish can be absent under these conditions. The diversity of birds and plants is somewhat lower than compared to the highest water quality.

This picture indicates a river where the water is suitable for boating, but the possibilities for swimming and angling are more limited. Pollution sensitive fish species are present as they are artificially planted out. The presence of fish, birds and plant species are limited.

This picture indicates a river where the water is not suitble for boating, swimming and angling. The presence of bird and plants are very limited, and there is few or no fish.

Lowest quality

Figure 6. The water quality ladder. The pictures and pictograms are protected by copyright, Hime & Bateman 2009. The generic water quality ladder can be seen in appendix C in this report.

Hime & Bateman (2009) has carefully ensured that the vegetation and fish species presented in the drawings of each of the water quality classes are in accordance with the classification system used for the WFD in England. At the time of our survey design the intercalibration of the objectives and quality indicators between the EU countries was not yet ended and concluded in EU. We therefore compared the specied composition of both fish and vegetation with Danish data for the reference condtions, and found that even though there can be differences in species composition, Baattrup-Pedersen et al (2008) conclude that the reference conditions and quality classess in lowland rivers and streams in UK, Germany, Denmark and the Baltic countries conform rather well. Of course, Danish rivers can look different than an English river like the one pictured, but this was not mentioned as a problem of reliablity in the focus groups and personal interviews. The icons and text used was adjusted to the conditions in Odense River, because trout fishery is pretty good in this river even though the water quality is classified as moderate.

21

The respondents were informed that the blue quality is the highest quality while the red is the lowest. Wordings like best and poorest is avoided not to influence the choices of alternatives due to moral obligations – we don’t expect that any will choose poor quality, and that it is easier to relate objectively to a ladder between high and low.

The symbols showed below each of the pictures are also explained in the text provided to the respondents. They are further informed that they are able to see the link to the water quality ladder whenever they want – they can easily click on a link and then the document will be presented for them on the screen.

The Contingent valuation

We use a payment card for the contingent WTP question. The question is: “In the table below we will ask you to value the maximum amount your household is willing to pay as a yearly extra payment to the water bill for the change of the water quality in Odense River/short stretch of Odense River. We ask you to consider your answer carefully, and remember your household has to pay this amount every year.”

The payment card is shown below.

The payment card

0 kr 560 kr 1200 kr 4880 kr 20 kr 600 kr 1280 kr 5250 kr 40 kr 640 kr 1350 kr 5630 kr 80 kr 680 kr 1430 kr 6000 kr 110 kr 710 kr 1500 kr 6380 kr 150 kr 750 kr 1690 kr 6750 kr 190 kr 790 kr 1880 kr 7130 kr 220 kr 820 kr 2060 kr 7500 kr 260 kr 860 kr 2250 kr 7880 kr 300 kr 900 kr 2440 kr 8250 kr 340 kr 940 kr 2630 kr 8630 kr 380 kr 970 kr 3000 kr 9000 kr 410 kr 1010 kr 3380 kr >9000 kr 450 kr 1050 kr 3750 kr Andet, notér:

490 kr 1090 kr 4130 kr Ved ikke 520 kr 1130 kr 4500 kr

These payment levels are used in all of the water quality surveys in AQUAMONEY, and the card is therefore relatively long, ranging from 0 to above 9000 kroner.

If the answer was “0” the respondents are asked. “Why did you answer “0 Kroner” in the previous question? State the most and second most important reason.” The respondents are given 15 different options: “The increase of the water bill is too high compared with the described improvement of the water quality”, “Odense River/The improved stretch of

22

Odense River is too far from my residency”, “I don’t use Odense River/this stretch of Odense River”, “The current condition in Odense River/the stretch is good enough”, “I don’t believe the water quality can be improved as described”, “I would rather pay for the improvement of another river/stretch of Odense River”, “ I would rather use my money on other things”, “I can not afford to pay a higher water bill than I already pay”, “The people who use Odense River should pay for the improvement”, “The waterworks should pay for the improvement”, “The state should pay for this”, “The water bill is already to high”, “The question was hard to answer” or “Other”. These questions help identifying protest zero bidders.

To test scope sensitivity there are two different scales of improvements of the river. The whole river is improved, as well as a shorter stretch of the river. The whole river is approx 60 km long, while the short stretch is 15 km long. The short stretch is located just outside Odense city.In the maps below the two different improvements are shown.

Figure 7 CV-maps

There are as mentioned two splits for the river. In one split the largest improvement, i.e. of the whole river, is presented first, and after that the short one. In between the respondents are asked to indicate their maximum willingness to pay on a payment card. In the other spilt, the respondents are similarly asked to value the shortest stretch first.

The Choice Experiments

The two splits (i.e. the splits receiving the short stretch and the long stretch first, respectively) mentioned above are also dissimilar as regards in the CE part, as one split

23

receives a map version of the choice tasks, and the other part of the survey receives a more traditional version.

In both CE-splits the choice sets were created using a simultaneous design in the sense that the design was selected from the collective factorial (Louviere 1988). From the full collective factorial, we used the D-optimal linear design routine in SAS (Kuhfeld 2001) to select 40 choice sets. Each choice set contained three alternatives, inclusive one opt-out alternative which was included in all of the choice sets. The design was finally blocked into four versions, each containing ten choice sets.

The attributes in the two survey-versions.In survey version 1 (N= 382 responses) (figure 8), each alternative is described using a map of the river. The river is divided into three different geographical stretches forming the attributes in the CE. Each of the stretches has a length between 15 and 20 km. The quality of each of these stretches is indicated by a colour on the presented maps, referring to the water quality ladder. The water quality levels represent the attribute levels that can take 3 levels: yellow, green and blue, referring to the water qualities moderate, good and very good, respectively. Poorer qualities are not included. The red quality – which is a poorer quality than the status quo situation (yellow) - is shown in the water quality ladder but is not included in the CE as the scenarios will not lead to decreasing quality.

Figure 8. Example of a choice set from survey version 1

In survey version 2 (N= 372 responses) (figure 9), the water quality for the entire river was indicated by the colours blue, green or yellow, also referring to the water quality ladder. In addition, attributes describing the possibility to fish, the possibility to access the river by tracks, the status of the area surrounding the river (if this area is cultivated agricultural land or non-cultivated land i.e. wetlands, meadows etc) were included.

24

Theme Present conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Water quality Yellow Green Blue

Angling Good Improved Improved

Access Restricted Good Good

Surrounding areas

Primary cultivated Primary uncultivated Primary uncultivated

Annual payment 0 DKK 650 DKK 1275 DKK

I prefer: (tick x in one of the boxes)

� � �

Figure 9. Example of a choice set from survey version 2:

In both versions, each alternative (apart from the status quo/opt-out alternative) is connected to a payment, which is a fixed increase in the annual water bill per household. The payment can take 6 levels, and the level in the status quo is zero.

This means that in survey version 1 we have three non-monetary attributes with three levels and one monetary attribute with six levels. In survey version 2 we use one attribute with three levels, three attributes with two levels and the monetary attribute with six levels. An example of a choice set for the two survey versions used in the questionnaire is given in the following page.

As mentioned the reason behind the use of two different survey versions is to enable comparison of the credibility of the study using visual information and maps in survey 1 (figure 8) with a more traditional choice set formulation in schemes in survey 2 (see figure 9). While the map survey version provides information on the trade-offs between water quality improvements in different geographical stretches of the river, the traditional survey version do not provide this information, but yields information on the trade-offs between the water quality improvement and two additional attributes representing the access to the river bank and the landscape surrounding the river (whether it is cultivated or not).

4. Valuation results

4.1. Non-respondent characteristics

The first question in the questionnaire was if the respondent wanted to participate, if no, they were provided 6 different reasons for why. Including “I don’t have the time but can be contacted later”, “I don’t have the time”, “No interest in participating in a research project”, “25-30 minutes response time is too long”, “I don’t want to participate when I don’t know what the survey is about” or “Other”.

436 of the 2100 households answered “no” to the first question, the rest (910) didn’t respond at all.

25

Table 2 Reasons not to participateWhy don't you want to participate? Freq. PercentI don't have time in the stated period but can be contacted later 64 14.85I don't have the time 87 20.19I'm not interested in participating in a research project 27 6.2625-30 minutes is too long time 177 41.07I don't want to participate when I don't know what the survey is about 20 4.64Other 56 12.99Total 431 100

In table 2 the reasons not to participate is presented. Only 5 percent of the non-respondents answered that the reason for non-participation was that they did not want to participate when they did not know what the survey is about. This is encouraging because we tried to reduce self selection bias by not telling about the theme before respondents accepted to attend, but we were anxious that omitting information about the theme could lead to non-responses. We conclude that this was not the case. Most of the rejects are due to the fact that the questionnaire will take 25-30 minutes, 41 percent finds that too long. This is of course a drawback of the internet sampling method as we expect a larger acceptance of more time consuming face-to-face interviews beyond 20 minutes. 20 percent of the non-respondents state that they simply do not have the time, while almost 15 percent doesn’t have the time right now but can be contacted later.Only 6 percent answer that they will not participate in a research project.

Additionally they were asked if they wanted to state their zip-code, it is then possible to see which municipality the non-respondents belong to. 402 stated a zip-code, but 2 of the stated zip-codes were outside the research area and a third was a non existing zip-code therefore only 399 non-respondents are presented in table 3.

Table 3. Non-respondents zip-codeMunicipality Freq. PercentMiddelfart 13 3.26Assens 8 2.01Faaborg-Midtfyn 19 4.76Kerteminde 1 0.25Nyborg 14 3.51Odense 76 19.05Svendborg 24 6.02Nordfyns 25 6.27Langeland 5 1.25Ærø 2 0.50Haderslev 4 1.00Sønderborg 9 2.26Tønder 2 0.50Vejen 20 5.01Kolding 81 20.30Vejle 60 15.04Hedensted 36 9.02

26

Approximately 60 percent of the non-respondents are from outside Funen, and 40 percentfrom the island of Funen. The non-respondents are mainly from the towns Kolding, Odense and Vejle, properly not because people here are indifferent to the water quality but because this is the three largest municipalities in the area measured on the number of households.

A number of socio-economic characteristics of the respondent panel pre-recruited byTNS-Gallup was known prior to the survey. They were left out of the questionnaire, but are included in the common-design dataset. Therefore it is also possible to get this kind of information for the non-respondents.

In total 436 respondents refused to do the questionnaire, the mean age for the refusals is 44 year (50 in the sample used for the main analysis) and 52 percent of them are males (56 in the sample used for the main analysis).

In figure 10 the household income distribution for the non-respondents is presented. As in the main sample the high income households are overrepresented and the low income households are underrepresented. Only households in the income interval 200-299.000 DKK differ, here they are underrepresented – in the main sample they were equal to the information from Statistics Denmark (DST).

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

until 99.999 Dkk 100.000-199.999Dkk

200.000-299.999Dkk

300.000-399.999Dkk

400.000 Dkk andabove

Income

Percent

Non-respondents

Southern Denmark (DST)

Figure 10. Non-respondents household income

4.2. Respondent characteristics and sample representativeness

754 respondents completed the questionnaire regarding the valuation of Odense River. In this section the respondents’ characteristics will be described.

27

Table 4. The geographical sampling

From the map beside table 4 it is seen that the respondents are concentrated in the urban areas, and there by reflect population distribution.

4.1.1. Demographic characteristics

55.70%49.32%

44.30%50.68%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sample Southern Denmark (DST)

Male Female

Figure 11 Gender distribution

There is a majority of respondents in the sample (Figure 11). Compared to the gender distribution in Southern Denmark according to Statistics DST it is clear that there is a strong overrepresentation of males in the sample.

Nearly 30 percent of the respondents in the sample are between 60 and 69 years old. Thisis a clear overrepresentation which is also seen in Figure 12 where age distribution in the

Municipality Freq. PercentMiddelfart 25 3.5Assens 23 3.22Faaborg-Midtfyn 38 5.32Kerteminde 12 1.68Nyborg 36 5.04Odense 188 26.33Svendborg 57 7.98Nordfyns 47 6.58Langeland 13 1.82Ærø 9 1.26Haderslev 28 3.92Sønderborg 1 0.14Tønder 6 0.84Vejen 14 1.96Kolding 97 13.59Vejle 68 9.52Hedensted 52 7.28Total 714 100

28

sample and in Southern Denmark is compared. Also the age group 50-59 is overrepresented while the rest of the age groups are underrepresented. The average age in the sample is 50 years while the average age in Southern Denmark is 49 years.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

18-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90- Age

Sample Southern Denmark (DST)

Figure 12. Age distribution

People with basic education are strongly underrepresented in the sample. Only 15 percent of the respondents have a basic education while 35 percent of the population in Southern Denmark have a basic education. Also people with short and medium cycle higher education are underrepresented while people with a general upper secondary, vocational and long cycle higher education are overrepresented in the sample. Everybody in the sample has stated their education.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Basic school General uppersecondary school

Vocationaleducation

Short-andmedium cycle

higher education

Long cycle highereducation

Unknown

Sample Southern Denmark (DST)

Figure 13. Educational distribution

29

4.1.2. Socio-economic characteristics

People with high household income are overrepresented in the sample, while people with low income are underrepresented. The average household income in the sample is DKK435,477 while it is DKK 426,796 in all of Southern Denmark according to the Statistics.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

until 99.999 Dkk 100.000-199.999Dkk

200.000-299.999Dkk

300.000-399.999Dkk

400.000 Dkk andabove

Sample Southern Denmark (DST)

Figure 14. Income distribution

4.1.3. Water use characteristics

On average the respondents make a trip to a river 32 times a year (one trip for eleven days), and 92 trips to a lake (almost twice a week).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

< 1 yearly 1 yearly 2 yearly 4 yearly 1 monthly 2 monthly 1 w eekly 2 w eekly >2 w eekly Every day

number

River trips

Lake trips

Figure 15 How often do you visit the river or lake?

30

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Motorised sailing

Sailing (non-motorised)

Fishing for other fish than salmon and trout

Bathing, sw iming..

Fishing for salmon og trout

Walk the dog

Experiencing nature, w atching birds and animals

Trips along the shore

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't Know

Figure16. When you visit a river or water stream, how often do you do the activities described below?

Figure 16 shows the distribution of what the respondents do when they visit a river or water stream and how often they do the activity in question. Over 50 percent of the respondents walk along the shore or experience the nature frequently or sometimes when they visit a river or water stream. Just over 20 percent walk their dog along the river frequently or sometimes. The rest of the activities (fishing, bathing and sailing) are rarely or never being practiced by nearly all the respondents.

4.2. Public perception of water management problems

The respondents are shown a map of the water quality in Odense River afterwards they are asked if the water quality is consistent with their expectations. Figure 17 shows how the respondents answered.

Consistent w ith expectation

Better condition than expected

Worse condition than expected

Don't know the w ater quality

Don't know

Figure 17. Is this description of the water quality in Odense River consistent with your expectations?

31

One forth of the respondents finds that the water quality in Odense River is worse than they expected. Just over one forth of the respondents finds that the water quality is consistent with their expectations. Only 8 percent had expected that the water quality in Odense River was better than it is.

4.3. Estimated economic values for water resource management

In table 5 the different mean WTP for the CVM are presented.

The mean WTP is estimated on the basis of predicted WTP for each respondent3.

Table 5. CVM Estimated mean WTP (in DKK.)Estimated mean WTP Obs Mean Std. Min MaxWTP for short improvement (all observations) 722 294.34 96.59 89.48 576.05WTP for short improvement (without protest bids) 660 322.68 93.82 109.14 597.28WTP for large improvement (all observations) 721 441.15 124.57 178.12 818.81WTP for large improvement (without protest bids) 665 479.10 128.69 188.78 867.60

The mean WTP is estimated with and without protest bids for both the short and large improvement. Estimates without protest bids are generally higher than with all observations since a number of zero bids are taken out of the sample. The mean WTP for the short improvement is between 294-323 DKK per household per year. Protest bidders are identified in line with the other AQUAMONEY case studies4.

As seen from table 5 households willingness to pay is sensitive to the magnitude of the improvement, i.e. whether the whole river is improved or only a minor part, and there is scope sensitivity. However, the internal scope is much stronger than the external, which is tested by introducing the short and the large improvement first in two split samples, and subsequently asking about the long/short improvement. The respondents answering the long improvement first and then the short have a significantly lower WTP for the smallest improvement, while this difference is not significant for the other part of the sample receiving the smallest improvement first.

In table 6 the implicit WTP results are presented for the Choice experiments. As seen the CE resultsin survey version 2 indicate that the WTP for obtaining “good” status is estimated to be 430 DKK (58 EURO) per household per year. Surprisingly there is a lower estimated WTP for higher quality. To obtain “very good” quality of the water,the mean WTP is estimated to be only 423 DKK (57 EURO) per household per year. The difference between the two estimates is not statistically significant, but the result indicates

3 See also Cho et al.(2005) or Gunatilake(2007)

4 Protest bids are defined as in AQUAMONEY; if a zero bid is reasoned by “I don’t think water quality will improve as described”, “People that use the river should pay for this”, “The water company should pay for this”, “The government should pay for this” or “The question was too difficult to answer”.

32

that there is no scope sensitivity in the sense that the respondents are not willing to pay for moving from “good” conditions to “very good” conditions.

Tabel 6. CE Marginal WTP (Standard error in parenthesis)Survey version 1 Survey version 2

Sample Sample

MWTP MWTP

Area Attribute Level /Water Quality

Area Attribute Level /Water

Quality

Good 329 Whole River Good 430Stretch 1(green) (51) (green) (44)Very good 582 Whole River5 Very good 423Stretch 1

(blue) (61) (blue) (56)Good 467 Whole River Fish -116Stretch 2(green) (49) (33)Very good 545 Whole River Access 138Stretch 2(blue) (53) (39)Good 257 Whole River Cultivated

Land74Stretch 3

(green) (54) (35)Very Good 303 Opt-out -246Stretch 3(blue) (51) (34)

96Opt-out(45)

*** denotes one percent significance level, ** five percent and * ten percent

4.4. Factors explaining economic values for water resource management

The average respondent is a 50 year old male who knows and uses Odense River and haslived at the current address for more than 5 years. He answered that he thought that the conditions in the river were better than they actually are, he has not experienced any water pollution in the summer 2008 and when he visits a river he walks along the shore and experiences nature.

5 The use of CE has been argued to get around the well-known problem of embedding since tests of scope are essentially built in to the CE (Hanley et al., 1998). However, although we don’t have a clean scope test, one could have expected less of a difference between the sums of marginal WTP for the different stretches in sample 1 compared to same environmental improvements for the whole river in survey version 2.

33

Table 7. Summary statistics of the variables, whole sample.Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min MaxBid for large improvement 754 380.61 636.51 0.00 6000.00Bid for short improvement 754 253.98 455.92 0.00 6000.00Distance to large improvement 754 30.40 24.80 0.06 96.27Distance to short improvement 754 30.57 24.71 0.09 101.25Distance coast 754 5.29 6.06 0.02 28.95Household income(DKK) 754 434,349.70 234,804.70 0.00 1,000,000.00Gender(1=male) 754 1.44 0.50 1 2Age 754 49.97 15.39 18 82Retired (=1) 754 0.19 0.39 0 1Know the river (=1) 754 0.97 0.17 0 1Know and use the river (=1) 754 0.78 0.41 0 1Water quality consistent with expectation 754 2.88 1.34 1 5Have experienced water pollution (=1) 754 0.38 0.49 0 1Fishing licence (=1) 749 0.01 0.11 0 1Finds the improvement possible (=1) 754 0.60 0.49 0 1Residency > 5years (=1) 754 0.67 0.47 0 1Activities by rivers or water streams Walk the dog 710 0.24 0.43 0 1 Nature experience 709 0.56 0.50 0 1 Fishing 754 0.08 0.26 0 1 Fishing for salmon or trout 709 0.07 0.26 0 1 Fishing for other fish 709 0.05 0.22 0 1 Bathing or swimming 708 0.12 0.33 0 1 Sailing (motorised) 707 0.02 0.13 0 1 Sailing (non-motorised) 710 0.04 0.20 0 1 Walking along the shore 709 0.69 0.46 0 1

Table 8 and 9 present the results of tobit regressions for WTP for the short improvement and for the improvement of the whole river. The regressions help to give an idea of which household and individual characteristics explain the WTP in the contingent valuationquestion. The regressions are run on the whole sample and on a sample without the protest bids. We use the same methods as in Cho et al.(2005).

Most of the parameter signs in the regression are as expected. The further away from the improvement in question, the less the household is willing to pay. The distance to the substitute, here the coast, has a positive influence on the bid. The larger distance to the substitute means that respondent values the river higher than the mean. Also if people walk along the river they tend to value the water quality higher. If the respondent is asked the short question first it has a positive effect on WTP for both the short and the large improvement. And of course the WTP rises if the respondent finds the improvement possible. Retired people tend to give a smaller bid, probably because they also have a lower income.The marginal change is the marginal effect on WTP caused by a change in the variable in question.

34

Table 8. Tobit regression, WTP for the short improvement (CVM)All observations Without protest bids

VariableCoef.

(std.error)Marg. Change

Coef. (std.error)

Marg. Change

Dist. to short improvement -2.470 ** -1.543 -2.242 ** -1.532(1.305) (1.301)

Dist. to coast 6.535 * 4.082 4.984 3.406(4.493) (4.463)

Residency_dum(> 5 years) -64.912 -40.548 -80.264 -54.847(62.460) (62.281)

Experience with waterpollution 17.745 11.084 2.096 1.432(51.659) (51.426)

Trips along the river 87.844 * 54.872 93.580 ** 63.946(56.241) (56.208)

Short1 (dummy = 1 if asked short improvement first) 131.251 **** 81.987 122.037 *** 83.392(50.431) (50.347)

Finds the improvement possible 253.455 158.322 203.246 **** 138.885(52.382) (52.629)

Use the river 52.056 32.517 51.459 35.164(63.483) (63.490)

Household income 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000(0.000) (0.000)

Retired -115.801 -72.335 -123.691 -84.522(86.741) (87.324)

Gender -69.348 -43.318 -106.036 *** -72.458(52.080) (51.873)

Age 0.412 0.258 1.408 0.962(2.343) (2.331)

Constant 0.858 0.536 131.419 89.803(146.67) (145.195)

sigma_e 623.905 604.754(21.918) (21.059)

N 722 660****, ***, **, * indicates statistical significance at respectively 1, 5, 10, 15 % level

35

Table 9. Tobit regression, WTP for the large improvement (CVM)All observations Without protest bids

VariableCoef.

(std.error)Marg. Change

Coef. (std.error)

Marg. Change

Dist. to large improvement -2.617 * -1.778 -3.132 ** -2.307(1.709) (1.706)

Dist. to coast 8.045 5.467 7.847 5.782(5.875) (5.839)

Residency_dum(> 5 years) 19.595 13.317 23.447 17.277(81.230) (80.089)

Experience with waterpollution 62.568 42.522 47.246 34.813(66.987) (66.449)

Trips along the river 94.923 64.511 88.302 65.065(73.052) (72.739)

Short1 (dummy = 1 if asked short improvement first) 179.384 **** 121.911 203.988 **** 150.307(66.426) (66.203)

Finds the improvement possible 249.802 **** 169.769 209.133 **** 154.098(67.504) (67.285)

Use the river 151.447 ** 102.925 129.207 * 95.205(82.264) (81.956)

Household income 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000(0.000) (0.000)

Retired -138.099 -93.854 -131.269 -96.724(113.174) (113.301)

Gender -131.659 ** -89.477 -164.963 *** -121.552(67.710) (66.976)

Age -2.924 -1.987 -2.077 -1.531(3.062) (3.035)

Constant 176.835 120.179 319.506 ** 235.425(188.229) (185.27)

sigma_e 823.8128 796.7323(27.580) (26.431)

N 721 665****, ***, **, * indicates statistical significance at respectively 1, 5, 10, 15 % level

One of the hypotheses in this case study, as well as in the AQUAMONEY study, is that there should be a distance decay, at least for users of the river. The estimated WTP drops by 1.53 DKK/kilometre for the short improvement and 2.31 DKK/kilometre for the large improvement, as seen from table 8 and 9.

The results also show that WTP increases with distance to the coast, and that those who have experienced water pollution have a larger WTP. Frequent users have a larger WTPas well as users going for trips along the river banks. Retired people have a lower WTP.

Choice experiments resultsAs mentioned before, there are two subsamples (splits) for the choice experiments in Odense River survey. Split one received CE choice sets with maps (see figure 8), and the other with “conventional” CE choice sets in tables, with text information (figure 9).

36

Descriptive statistics for the two subsamples used for both the CE and the CV-econometric estimations are presented in Table 7.

The variables ‘better’ and ‘worse’ are related to whether respondents agree with information provided concerning the current quality of Odense River. Although the majority of the respondents agree with the current water quality level as described, there is a non-negligible probability that some respondents disagree. In particular, 8 percent of the respondents believed that water quality is better than described in the survey while 25-26 percent believed it is worse than described. The disagreement with current quality estimates seems to be fairly equal for versions 1 and 2.6

Table 10. CE split samples, descriptive statisticsSurvey Vers. 1

Survey Vers. 2

Mean MeanVariable Description

(St.dv) (St.dv)

50.00 50.00Age Respondent age in years

(15) (15)

0.43 0.45Female 1 if female respondent

(0.5) (0.5)

0.42 0.38Users 1 if the respondent is a user

(0.49) (0.48)

0.17 0.19Angler 1 if the respondent is an angler

(0.37) (0.39)

100397 30847Distance7 In meters

(70662) (25326)

0.08 0.08Better 1 if the respondent thinks that the water quality is better than described

(0.28) (0.27)

0.26 0.25Worse 1 if the respondent thinks that the water quality is worse than described

(0.44) (0.43)

Table 11 presents the RPL model for survey version 1 and 2.

6 The joint probability (to agree with the current quality level and believing in future improvements) is 22 percent in survey version 1 and 25 percent in survey version 2.

7 For survey version 1 it is the aggregated distance from the residence of the respondents to the three river-stretches. The distance spans from 14,609 to 298,832 meter. For survey version 2 it is the minimal distance to the nearest point of the river. The distance spans from 85 to 90,125 meter.

37

Table 11. Random Parameter Logit (P-value in parenthesis).

Nr. of individuals Nr. of observationsSurvey version 1 382 3820

Survey version 2 372 3720

Survey version 1 Survey version 2Coeff. Coeff.0.206 0.179ASC P(Opt-out)

(0.596) (0.633)0.003 -0.009Age

(0.505) -0.077-0.430 0.359Female (0.008) (0.025)-0.457 -0.814User(0.018) (0.000)-0.297 -0.444Angler(0.181) (0.032)

-0.00000247 -0.0000126Distance(0.071) (0.01)1.461 -0.811Better

(0.000) (0.009)0.379 -0.226Worse

(0.095) (0.313)

Attribute Coeff. St.dv1.035 1.862Stretch 1: Good

(0.000) (0.000)1.986 2.452Stretch 1: Very

good (0.000) (0.000)1.366 1.631Stretch 2: Good

(0.000) (0.000)1.64 1.81Stretch 2: Very

good (0.000) (0.000)0.606 1.628Stretch 3: Good

(0.000) (0.000)0.685 1.654Stretch 3: Very

good (0.000) (0.000)-0.0027Cost

(year/household) (0.000)

Attribute Coeff. St.dv St.dv1.497 1.82 1.862Good

0 0 01.667 2.51 2.452Very good

0 0 0-0.228 1.02 1.631Angling-0.03 0 00.652 1.77 1.81Access

0 0 00.339 1.38 1.628Cultivated Land-0.048 0 0

Cost -0.003 1.654(year/household) 0 0

38

The models are estimated with Nlogit 4.0 using simulated maximum likelihood with Halton draws with 500 replications. See Train (2003) for details on simulated maximum likelihood. The RPL models we present are estimated in 2 steps. In table 11 only significant interactions with attributes are included.

Removing highly insignificant terms (at 20 percent level) is important in our case as it affects the precision of the welfare estimates and therefore also the final conclusion about the affect of scenario realism.

All attributes coefficients in Table 11 have the expected signs except the angling attribute in survey 2 that has a negative sign and the distance decay function in both versions.

All estimated standard deviations of the random attribute parameters are significant.

As seen from the table the distance parameter is negative, and very small.

The figure below can be used to explain some of the reasons for this – from this figure we can see that the probability to opt-out is more or less a constant function of the distance up to a distance of about 25 km where after it drops dramatically. This can explain the missing distance decay, and the fact that respondents have a higher probability to opt out when they live close to the river than more distant respondents can be explained by the fact that a large part of the respondents perceive the river quality in the status quo as better than we present the quality.

39

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

25000 50000 75000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000

Figure 18. Marginal probability to opt out as a function of distance

An explanation of the opt-out tendency close to the river can also that these respondents living close to the river are not willing to pay more for a better water quality because they like the current state. Further, the almost opposite distance-decay might therefore be a result of people living far from the river are answering to water quality in general, and that people close to the river that have a better knowledge of the river, and like the current state, are less likely to pay for the change.

4.5. Total Economic Value

The calculation of the total economic value (TEV) can be done aggregating in different ways(see Bateman et al 2000). We have chosen two approaches; but will continue to work on these estimations using more sophisticated GIS approaches to include the distance. These GIS work are however not a part of this case study report.

Table 12. TEV in DKK. for CVM (N= 464614)TEV aggregation types TEVTEV for short improvement (all observations) 136,754,671TEV for short improvement (without protest bids) 149,920,391TEV for large improvement (all observations) 204,965,860TEV for large improvement (without protest bids) 222,598,565Number of households in the 19 municipalities 464,614

Marginal probability to opt out

Distance in meters

40

Table 12 reflects a simple aggregation of the WTP for the 19 municipalities; the mean WTP is multiplied with the total number of households in the 19 municipalities. The aggregation is done for the short and the large improvement – with and without the protest bids.

To aggregate using the distance decay, the area is divided into the municipalities (in some municipalities we have very few observations; they are therefore aggregated with a neighbour municipality). The mean WTP is estimated for each municipality group, and then multiplied with the number of households in this group/area. The mean WTP for the areas is presented in table 13.

Table 13. WTP(DKK) in municipalitiesWTP

(DKK/household/annum) Benefits (DKK/annum)

Municipality#

Households

Mean distance to

Odense River (m)

# Obs.

Short improvement

Large improvement

Short improvement

Large improvement

Odense 91385 3954.55 183 311.2 444.7 28,440,931 40,636,981Southern Funen 38176 75 294.3 590.0 11,235,857 22,524,546Ærø 3571 30201.50Langeland 6936 41139.40Svendborg 27669 20197.40Western Funen 58064 82 292.1 542.8 16,960,117 31,518,231Assens 18414 12505.00Faaborg-Midtfyn 23132 6829.02Middelfart 16518 29670.60Northern Funen 37798 87 382.0 480.4 14,439,172 18,157,993Nordfyns 12768 16029.60Nyborg 14506 19634.70Kerteminde 10524 12510.40Kolding 40047 54655.00 95 190.8 292.4 7,642,670 11,710,736Vejle 47294 74548.70 65 195.9 289.2 9,263,523 13,676,748Hedensted 18948 58538.10 50 223.8 372.2 4,239,725 7,053,355Southern Jutland 97935 47 467.1 559.2 45,742,216 54,764,655Haderslev 25818 56768.00Sønderborg 35655 37596.60Tønder 18192 88998.80Vejen 18270 78550.50Total 137,964,212 200,043,245

In figure 19 a map of the municipalities and Odense River is presented. The darkness of the green colour indicates how far away from Odense River the municipality is. The distance used is the mean distance in the municipality. The blue line is Odense River.

41

Figure 19 Municipalities and distance to Odense River

The map shown in figure 19 is used for the aggregation presented in table 14. In table 14 the WTP for users (respondents who have responded positive to have visited the river) are presented.

Table14 WTP (DKK) in municipality for usersWTP (DKK/household/annum)

Municipality # Households

Mean distance to

Odense River (m) # Obs.

Short improvement

Large improvement

Odense 91385 3954.55 154 320.84 455.83Southern Funen 38176 17 288.06 438.85Ærø 3571 30201.50Langeland 6936 41139.40Svendborg 27669 20197.40Western Funen 58064 32 228.07 641.16Assens 18414 12505.00Faaborg-Midtfyn 23132 6829.02Middelfart 16518 29670.60Northern Funen 48175 41 475.25 556.33Nordfyns 16029.60 16029.60Nyborg 19634.70 19634.70Kerteminde 12510.40 12510.40Jutland 449655.70 33 229.3 506.95Kolding 54655.00 54655.00Vejle 74548.70 74548.70Hedensted 58538.10 58538.10Haderslev 56768.00 56768.00Sønderborg 37596.60 37596.60Tønder 88998.80 88998.80Vejen 78550.50 78550.50

42

In table 15, the distance from the improved river (stretch) to the point where the willingness to pay equals zero is estimated. As stated earlier this survey had a maximum radius of 100 km from Odense River, according to table 15 the WTP does not fall to zero within this area.

For the short improvement the WTP falls to zero at a distance of 144 km from the river while the distance is 212 km for the large improvement (both without protest bids). Another problem arises as the boundary is moved; how to handle WTP in Germany as the border is within this distance.We have chosen not to include German citizens.

Table 15. Estimated distance for WTP=0Distance where WTP=0 KMShort improvement (all observations) 119.17Short improvement (without protest bids) 143.91Large improvement (all observations) 168.58Large improvement (without protest bids) 212.36

Table 16 present the aggregated WTP for the CE-results. The three stretches of Odense River is aggregated and then multiplied with the number of households in the 19 municipalities in the survey. As mentioned no distance decay was found in the CE.

Table 16. TEV in DKK. for CE survey 1Attribute Level /Water Quality WTP sum of stretch 1, 2 & 3 TEVGood 1,053 489,238,542Very good 1,430 664,398,020Number of households in the 19 municipalities 464,614

5. ConclusionsThe present study is the first economic valuation of the benefits of attaining “good and very good ecological status” in water bodies in Denmark, and is one of the very few studies dealing witth the benefits of improvements of surface water quality in Denmark.

The main objective of this study has been to estimate the benefits of improvements of the ecological status of Odense River according to the water framework directive. The survey focused on households’ recreational use of water bodies and their willingness to pay for improvements of the ecological status of Odense River. The internet survey was conducted on 754 households in Funen and the municipalities of the Southern Danish region in the summer of 2008. The changes/improvements valued were good and very good water quality as compared to the initial conditions of the river that are of moderate water quality.

In comparison to the WTP results below Danish households currently pay on average DKK 4000/yr (533 Euro) per household for water and sanitation.

43

The hypothesis of a distance decay of the WTP was tested, as well as a hypothesis of scope sensitivity, i.e. that respondents are sensitive to scope and that they are willing to pay more for a large change than a minor change in the provision of the good.

Distance decay is assessed both with the contingent valuation method and choice expderiments. In the CV part the willingness to pay drops by 1.53 DKK/kilometre for the short improvement and 2.31 DKK/kilometre for the large improvement. This means that for the short improvement the radius of households affected by the improvement is 144 km, while it is 212 km for the large improvement. The larger distance for the large improvement despite the faster drop, is caused by the higher mean WTP. No significant distance decay is found in the CE-part of the study.

The sensitivity to scope is tested by asking of the WTP for improvements of the whole river versus one stretch of the river. The stretch is located outside Odense city, and is 15 km out of the total of 60 km. With the contingent valuation method the mean willingnessto pay for an improvement in Odense River to good ecological status is estimated for a short improvement (15 km out of Odense River which is approx. 60 km long) to be 323 DKK (43 EURO) per household per year. For the large improvement (the whole river) the equivalent is estimated to be 479 DKK (64 EURO) per household per year.

Hence, we conclude that the households’ willingness to pay is sensitive to the magnitude of the improvement, i.e. whether the whole river is improved or only a minor part. However, the internal scope is much stronger than the external, which is tested by introducing the short and the large improvement first in two split samples, and subsequently asking about the long/short improvement. The respondents answering the long improvement first and then the short have a significantly lower WTP for the smallest improvement, while this difference is not significant for the other part of the sample receiving the smallest improvement first.

With the CE method the WTP for obtaining “good quality” for the three river stretches is estimated to be 329 DKK for stretch 1 close to Odense River, 467 DKK for the middle stretch and 257 DKK for the stretch closest to the south coast and Arresø. In other words, the stretch closest to Odense city is not valued highest. The sum of the WTP for the three stretches is 1053 DKK (141 EURO) per household per year. To obtain “very good” quality of the water the sum of the WTP for the stretches is estimated to be 1430 DKK (192 EURO) per household per year (582 + 545 +303 DKK). For this quality the stretch closest to Odense is valued highest. Valuing good and very good quality imporvements for the whole river, as one attribute, results in a WTPfor “good” status at 430 DKK (58 EURO) per household per year. Surprisingly there is a lower estimated WTP for a higher water quality as to obtain “very good” status in this survey version - the WTP is 423 DKK (57 EURO) per household per year. These external scope test results imply no scope sensitivity as the respondents are willing to pay the same amount for 1/3 of the river as for the whole river.

The results from the study are going to be used for a Cost Benefit Analysis of the WFD improvements, and for this use the the total economic value (TEV) is calculated using the

44

estimated distance decay function for the CV-results. Alternatively, aggregation can be done within the administrative/political region.

For the CV, the TEV for the short improvement to obtain a good quality, is estimated to be between 138-150 million DKK per year (18-20 million EURO). For the large improvement the TEV is estimated to be between 200-223 million DKK per year (27-30 million EURO). For the CE, the TEV is more than 3 times as large as for the CV to obtain a good quality, 489 million DKK per year (66 million EURO). To obtain a very good quality (using CE) the TEV is 664 million DKK per year (89 million EURO).

There are some uncertainties to the results. First of all a relatively large proportion of the sample answer that they disagree regarding the initial conditions of the river: A relatively large proportion (one forth) of the respondents finds that the water quality in Odense River is worse than they expected; i.e. they have a picture of the river as better than the one we present. Just over one forth of the respondents finds that the water quality is consistent with their expectations, and less than ten percent think that the water quality in fact is worse than the quality we present for them in the status quo. This reveals that a relatively large part of the sample disagree on the status quo description, despite the fact that we have informed that this quality information is built on monitoring data and information from the Environmental Centre in Odense.

6. Best practice recommendations

The water quality ladder, the illustrations of water quality and quantity levels:Judgment by experts:Danish water management experts (e.g. the Environmental centre in Odense) mention and point at the small differences between green and blue level illustrations in the generic water quality ladder; but also that this is fairly realistic because the differences are not always visible, the differences are to some degree due to differences in the insect fauna.

The problems of using the water quality ladder can further be that the ladder implies a hierarchical relationship in the quality and the use of the river. Therefore the experts in the environmental centre of Funen did not like the idea of a water quality ladder, as the changes in quality levels are more complex than this ladder indicates. This is why changes from red to blue to yellow can occur for neighboring stretches – explained by differences in the bottom conditions (clay, sand) and hydrology (meandering etc). Because of this, no prohibitions were placed on the appearance of the quality levels -green quality can follow after yellow and in fact also after red because of hydrological conditions (meandering etc) of the river, outlets of waste water etc. In the study we made restrictions so that the water quality can not be worse, i.e. for the river we employ only these quality levels: yellow, green and blue, because the river is in moderate conditions.

45

Experiences with laymenThe hierarchical relationships do not necessarily confirm to lay peoples definitions on the required quality for fishing, boating and swimming either; but from the focus groups interviews and the personal interviews after the pilot test we found that respondents found the water quality ladder useful, and that they appreciated that information was presented in pictures, by icons, text and maps – some of them related most to the pictures and others to the text. From the pilot test and follow up interviews we therefore concluded that both the pictures and the maps were understandable for the respondents.

We therefore conclude that the ladder and the illustrations were usable, but also that the interpretation of the water quality ladder can cause some future explanatory problems regarding the use of the results because of the uncertainty related to the differences between respondents’ own perceptions and the scientific and monitoring information behind the pictures and maps. This problem does not differ from any other survey method however. The colors used in the ladder and the text presented conform to the text in the Danish WFD, and hereby a good link is established.

From the study we have experienced that it is important that respondents find information credible and realistic; if one have doubts about this follow up questions should be asked to enable analyses of the reliability. We have faced problems regarding the fact that a proportion of the respondents answered that they perceive the current quality as better than the environmental centre monitors this quality – leading to differences between what we present regarding the good and what respondents perceive.

We have furthermore experienced that the WTP for the blue quality is lower than for the green quality in the CE – this problem can also be linked to the use of the ladder. It is not straight forward to interpret that the there is a disutility from improvements from green to blue, but is can be explained by lack of credibility.

The use of mapsThe experience from the pilot study and the follow up interviews was that the maps were understood by most respondents. In the pilot we presented all the different monitoring stretches for the respondents, and the water quality for all these different stretches. In all there were 7 stretches in the pilot design. We experienced that dividing the river in so many stretches (7) was to demanding, and in the final study we reduced the attributes to 3 stretches. We found the same as in Norway that including many substitute sites on the map would confuse too much, so the substitutes were not marked explicit with colors or other indications for quality. We asked respondents to point out substitute sites (where they most frequently go for recreational activities), and to indicate these places on a map.

46

For the CE we made two survey versions, one with maps and one with a traditional design using a choice scheme for comparison, and this scheme allowed for more detailed assessments of angling and other uses, i.e. more direct formulation of different use-attributes.

The maps and the generic water quality ladder makes the questionnaire and the illustrations usable for other policy sites and hence for transfers not only of the results and the benefit function but also for transfers of the questionnaire and survey design.However, new maps have to be produced, and most preferably focus group testing should be done to ensure that information is reliable and credible.

Advantages and disadvantages with the sampling method?We did a web-based sampling by the institute GALLUP and the advantages were that we could do the survey rather easily and fast, that we could ensure that respondents do not correct their answers to be consistent (.e.g. answers to follow up questions, scope tests etc). The internal scope sensitivity and order effects could therefore be tested.

Further interactive maps can be programmed, and sample representativeness is guaranteed by survey company. The disadvantage is that this method is expensive - in Denmark it is although cheaper than face to face. Further there is a large need for quality control as the institute does not have any expert in this field – and it is difficult to build up experience in the survey institute as they use different staff each time.

The method allows for analysis of non-participants with respect to their home address, and the information GALLUP already has on socioeconomic characteristics.

Sampling and representativenessIn the main survey we sampled in a wider geographical area than in the pilot to 1) estimate distance decay 2) have enough respondents for all of the splits. The survey institute can not secure representative sampling of income and education, but should aim at this. A geographical representative sampling was established, but as Odense is the area with most inhabitants an overrepresentation was found here.

Time to answer the surveyIdeally the survey should take around 15 minutes, and we experienced that the most common reason for non-participation was time – we explained that the survey took 25-30 minutes, which in fact is short time for these complex questions.

Avoid self-selection bias

47

We did not inform the respondents of the theme for the questionnaire before they accepted to participate to avoid self-selection by people interested in water quality issues and environmental problems. We were somewhat anxious that not explaining the theme would affect the response rate negatively, but very few non-respondents choose this as the reason for non-participation.

Timing of the surveyThe survey was conducted in July 2008. It is an excellent time to deal with quality and use of water, but it was problematic that many households were on holiday. The sampling period was therefore longer than usual (5 weeks), and the response rate lower.

Recommendations regarding design of future valuation studiesAs always, focus groups and pre-testing are essential - how the illustrations are interpreted by lay people and experts are important issues. Effort should be dedicated to identifying relevant attributes and their definition for lay public, as well as status quo interpretation as definition of the status quo is a major issue. Detailed information on status quo has to be simplified without loosing the link between the results and the quantitative information on the quality levels.

Ensure geographically sampling, and ensure equal sampling in all splitsRiver basins are most likely not the best aggregation region, look for the best area to aggregate over. Ensure rural representatives and make quotas of age, geography, income etc.

Validity tests Because of the geographical aspect of river protection scope test and distance decay are important validity tests, as well as tests in utility of income. Ordering effect can also be tested along with the sensitivity to scope – internal and external. The latter is the strongest test.

ReportingThe use of maps in reporting is appealing and illustrative for the users. This is also the fact of other answers than the WTP; the other questions can be used as a rich database for people’s perception of river and river bank recreation. Qualitative information/answers are important to present as well as quantitative.

By using the benefit estimated together with costs the results can be used for testing derogation/exemptions from objectives, as one way of testing this very complicated question. But if substitutes are not considered properly, this can be very difficult

Making the results visible and used

48

We disseminate results to Danish EPA, environmental centers (RB authorities), at internal meetings and popular scientific conferences, write article in popular journals as well as international, scientific articles.

More contact to water managers We have experienced a large demand for knowledge about the economic consequences of the WFD, but rather vague ideas of how to use the results regarding the benefits. We have presented the results whenever possible, and we recommend making examples of cost-benefit assessments and use of valuation results for exemptions testing.

References

Baattrup-Pedersen, A., G. Springe, T. Riis, S.E: Larsen, K. S. Jensen, L.M. K. Larsen, 2008: The search for reference conditions for stream vegetation in northern Europe. Freshwater Biology, 53(9), 1890-1901.

Barbier, E.B., M. Acreman, D. Knowler, 1997. Economic Valuation of Wetlands, a guide for policy makers and Planners. RAMSAR Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.

Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Nishikawa, N., Lake, I., 2000. The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(2) pp291-302.

Bateman, I.J., Day, B.H., Georgiou, S., Lake, I., 2006. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distancr decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics 60 pp450-460

Cho S-H, Newman, D.H., Bowker, J.M. 2005. Measuring rural homeowners’ willingness to pay for land conservation easements. Forest Policy and Economics 7 757-770.

County of Funen (2003). Odense Pilot River. Provisional Article 5 Report pursuant to the Water Framework Directive. Fyn County.http://odenseprbuk.fyns-amt.dk/wm134077

Freeman, A.M. III, 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource values. Theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

Gunatilake, H., Yang, J-C., Pattanayak, S., Choe, K.A., 2007. Good Practices for Estimating Relieble Willingness-to-Pay Values in the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector. Asian Development Bank ERD Technical note series no. 23

NRC, National Research Council, 1997. Valuing groundwater. Economic concepts and approaches. National Academic Press, Washington, DC.

49

NRC, National Research Council, 2004. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Toward better environmental decision-making, Washington, DC.

Hime, S. and Bateman, I.J. (2009) A transferable water quality ladder for conveying use and ecological information within public surveys, ChREAM project, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University of East Anglia.

Kataria M, B. Hasler, C. J. Nissen, T. Christensen, L.Martinsen, J. Ladenburg, G. Levin, A. Dubgaard, I. Bateman and S.Hime (unpublished paper): Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choce experiments. Evidence from a study on implementation of the water framework directive in a Danish River.

Rogers, P., R. de Silva, and R. Bhatia. 2002. Water is an economic good. How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water Policy (4): 1-17.

WATECO, 2002. Economics and the Environment. The implementation challenge of the Water Framework Directive. A Guidance Document. Guidance document N.1, Common Implementation Strategy for the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive, European Commission 2002. http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/.

Young, R., 2005. Determining the economic value of water: concepts and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

50

Appendix A. The questionnaire (In Danish) Kære panelist,

Denne undersøgelse udgør en del af et større forskningsprojekt, som udføres af forskere fra Aarhus Universitet, Københavns Universitet og forskningsinstituttet Anvendt KommunalForskning.

Det tager ca. 25-30 minutter at besvare skemaet, og du er selvfølgelig velkommen til at holde pause undervejs. Du kan dog ikke gemme din besvarelse. Som deltager er du med i lodtrækningen om 3 gavekort á 300 kr. til Gavekortet.dk.

Vinderne får direkte besked fra G@llupForum.

1. Har du lyst til at deltage i undersøgelsen? (Sæt ét kryds)

Ja ........................................................Nej .......................................................

Filter 1: Kun hvis Q1= Nej Hvis du har svaret nej, vil vi alligevel høre dig, om du vil opgive dit postnummer?

1.a Postnummer:………………………….Ønsker ikke at oplyse postnummer

1.b Hvad er årsagen til, at du ikke ønsker at deltage?

Jeg har ikke tid inden for den angivne periode, men jeg kan kontaktes senere...Jeg har ikke tid ................................................................................................Jeg har ikke interesse i at deltage i et forskningsprojekt .....................................25-30 minutter er for lang tid…………………………………………………...Jeg vil ikke deltage, når jeg ikke ved hvad undersøgelsen drejer sig om …………………………………………………..................................................Andet……………………....................................................................................

Tak for dit svar.

Filter 1: Slut

Indledende spørgsmålEr du…?

(Sæt ét kryds)Mand Kvinde

Hvor bor du?For at kunne bearbejde din besvarelse, skal vi bruge din nuværende adresse Disse oplysninger vil ikke blive offentliggjort.

51

Skriv vejnavn her:…………………………………………………………………………

Marker dit husnummer ved at sætte kryds i en af disse rubrikker:1-20 .............................................................. 21-40 .............................................................. 41-60 .............................................................. 61-80 .............................................................. 81-100 .............................................................. 101-120 .............................................................. 121-140 .............................................................. 141-161 .............................................................. 161-180 .............................................................. 181-200 .............................................................. 201-220 .............................................................. 221-240 .............................................................. 241-260 .............................................................. 261-280 .............................................................. 281-300 .............................................................. 301-400 .............................................................. 401-450 .............................................................. 451-500 .............................................................. 551-600 .............................................................. 601-650 .............................................................. 650-700 .............................................................. 700+ ..............................................................

Skriv dit postnummer her:…………………………

Vil ikke afgive adresse

Nedenfor er der vist et kort. Vi vil bede dig om at markere, hvor du bor på dette kort. Flyt musen til dette sted på kortet og klik.

NYT kort over Fyn og det sydlige Jylland indsættes af GALLUP

52

53

2. Hvor længe har du boet på denne adresse?Hele mit liv ........................................Mere end 5 år .....................................Mellem 1 og 5 år ................................Mindre end 1 år..................................Ønsker ikke at svare...........................

Filter 3: kun hvis Q4 forskellig fra ”hele mit liv”

3. Hvor har du boet før du bosatte dig på denne adresse?Samme område (postnummer) som nu Et andet område på Fyn ..................... Et andet område i Jylland...................Sjælland eller Bornholm ....................Andet (udlandet) ...............................Jeg har boet på adressen hele mit liv .Ønsker ikke at svare...........................

Filter 3: Slut

Hoved-fokus for denne undersøgelse er rekreation i og i nærheden af vand – dvs. vandløb og åer, søer, fjorde og kysten. Med rekreation mener vi udendørs aktiviteter som for eksempel gåture, løbeture, ture med hunden, fisketure, jagt, badeture, roture, ture hvor du ser efter fugle og dyr, picnic/frokost i det grønne og lignende.

Vi er interesserede i din personlige mening om de spørgsmål vi stiller, uanset hvor meget du bruger naturen og interesserer dig for friluftsliv eller vandmiljø, og uanset hvilken viden du i forvejen har om friluftsliv og vandmiljø. Din besvarelse er sikret fuld anonymitet.

Vi vil nu stille dig nogle spørgsmål om dine rekreative vaner.

4. Hvor ofte bruger du naturområder rekreativt – så som ture ved en fjord, en kyststrækning, en strand, i skoven, ved en sø, langs et vandløb eller en å – eller i det åbne land?

Jeg besøger naturområder: Sjældnere end 1 gang årligt................ ...................................1 gang årligt ....................................... ...................................en gang hver 6. måned (2 gange årligt)..................................en gang hver 3. måned (4 gange årligt)..................................en gang om måneden (12 gange årligt) .................................en gang hver fjortende dag (25 gange om året) ....................en gang ugentligt (50 gange om året) ....................................to gange ugentligt (100 gange om året) .................................mere end to gange ugentligt (200 gange om året)..................hver dag (365 gange om året). ...............................................Aldrig ................................................. ...................................Ved ikke, ønsker ikke at svare .......... ...................................

54

6.b Hvor mange rekreative ture (angiv ca. antal) til øvrige naturområder har du været på i løbet af det sidste år

Ca. ............................ ture i naturen

7. Hvor ofte bruger du åer og mindre vandløb – samt områder ved åer og vandløb – til rekreative formål? Dvs. hvor ofte (ca.) går eller løber du en tur langs et vandløb eller en å, fisker, går på jagt, bader, tager på telttur, ser efter fugle og dyr eller spiser frokost ved en å eller et mindre vandløb?

Sjældnere end 1 gang årligt................ ...................................1 gang årligt ....................................... ...................................en gang hver 6. måned (2 gange årligt)..................................en gang hver 3. måned (4 gange årligt)..................................en gang om måneden (12 gange årligt) .................................en gang hver fjortende dag (25 gange om året) ....................en gang ugentligt (50 gange om året) ....................................to gange ugentligt (100 gange om året) .................................mere end to gange ugentligt (200 gange om året)..................hver dag (365 gange om året). ...............................................Aldrig ................................................. ...................................

7.a Hvor mange rekreative ture (angiv ca. antal) til vandløb og åer har du været på i løbet af det sidste år

Ca. ............................ ture til vandløb og/eller åer

55

8. Hvor ofte foretager du dig de forskellige aktiviteter beskrevet nedenfor, når du besøger en å eller et vandløb?

(Sæt kun ét kryds i hver række)

Ofte (næsten

hver gang du besøger

åen)

Nogle gange (ca. halvdelen af besøgene)

Sjældent Aldrig

Ture langs bredden af åen så som gåture, cykelture, løbeture, fodring af ænder,picnic/frokost, sidde stille

Ikke motoriseret sejlads (så somkanosejlads, roning)

Motoriseret sejlads

Bade, svømme, soppe

Fiske efter laks og ørred

Fiske efter andre fisk, fx gedde, sandart, aborre, skalle

Naturoplevelser, se på dyr og fugle

Gå tur med hunden

Andet

I de næste spørgsmål vil vi spørge dig om nogle foreslåede forbedringer af vandmiljøet på Fyn. Det er meget vigtigt for undersøgelsens resultater, at så mange som muligt svarer. Selv om du måske ikke bor på Fyn eller interesserer dig for vandmiljø vil vi derfor meget gerne høre din mening.

I disse år lægges der planer med henblik på at forbedre kvaliteten af vandet i søer, åer/vandløb, fjorde og kystvande. Denne undersøgelse giver dig en mulighed for at udtrykke din mening om disse planer for Odense Å på Fyn.

De kommende spørgsmål handler således om vandkvaliteten for Odense Å.

Vi bruger symboler, tegninger og tekst for at forklare hvordan forskellig vandkvalitet i Odense Å medfører forskellige muligheder for at bruge vandet til rekreative formål. Vandkvaliteten i en å

56

betyder noget for folks oplevelse af naturen ved åen. Vandkvaliteten påvirker også andre aktiviteter, samt levevilkårene for planter og dyr.

Dette symbol viser at vandkvaliteten er god nok for selv meget forureningsfølsomme fiskearter

Dette symbol viser at vandet er egnet til fisk som er mindre forureningsfølsomme

Dette symbol viser at vandet er egnet som badevand (svarende til blåt flag)

Dette symbol viser at vandet er egnet til at ro eller sejle i

Dette symbol viser at vandet er egnet som leve- og opholdssted for fugle, og at det derfor er gode muligheder for at se fugle

Når vandkvaliteten aftager, så reduceres også levevilkårene for dyr og planter, samt mulighederne for at foretage de beskrevne aktiviteter. Symboler med halvt eller helt kryds viser at mulighederne for at foretage disse aktiviteter aftager delvist eller forsvinder helt.

Billederne nedenfor viser en å i forskellige vandkvaliteter – og vi bruger billederne her til at vise kvaliteten af forskellige strækninger af Odense Å.

Symbolerne under billederne viser, hvilke aktiviteter miljømyndighederne vurderer, at vandetkan bruges til. Vi beder dig om at tage dig god tid til at studere billederne og symbolerne, og om at lægge mærke til forskellene mellem billederne – de er forskellige når det gælder vandets klarhed, fisk, planter mv.

Ved hvert billede er der en farve. Vi bruger rød til at indikere den laveste vandkvalitet, og gul, grøn og blå for at vise stigende vandkvalitet.

I de følgende spørgsmål bruger vi disse farver til at beskrive vandkvaliteten i Odense Å. Vandkvaliteten er opgjort af Miljøcenter Odense, som er den officielle myndighed, som overvåger kvaliteten af vandområderne på Fyn.

I de kommende spørgsmål vil der være et link, som du kan klikke på med musen, hvis du vil se billederne og den forklarende tekst igen.

57

Højeste kvalitet

Dette billede viser en å i den højeste kvalitet. Vandet er egnet til roning, fiskeri, og svømning. Vandet er egnet for alle typer fisk, planter og fugle, som er naturligt forekommende i denne type vandløb.

Dette billede viser en å hvor vandet er egnet til roning, svømning og fiskeri, selv om de mest forureningsfølsomme fisk kan være fraværende. Mangfoldigheden af fugle og planter er noget mindre end i den højeste tilstand.

Dette billede viser en å hvor vandet er egnet til roning, men hvor mulighederne for svømning og fiskeri er mere begrænsede. Der forekommer forureningsfølsomme fisk men disse er delvis udsat (dvs. ikke naturligt forekommende). Forekomsten af fisk, fugle og planter er begrænset.

Dette billede viser en å hvor vandet ikke er egnet til roning, fiskeri eller svømning. Der er et meget begrænset fugle- og planteliv, og der er kun få eller ingen fisk.

Laveste kvalitet

58

Kortet nedenfor viser at den nuværende tilstand for Odense Å svarer til den gule tilstand. Vandkvaliteten kan variere noget fra sted til sted på åen. At vandkvaliteten varierer er der flere forskellige årsager til; f.eks. udslip fra bebyggelser og veje mv., udvaskning af næringsstoffer fra landbruget, samt forskellige fysiske forhold og vandgennemstrømning i åen. Men generelt er Odense Å i den gule tilstand.

Hvis du vil gå tilbage for at se teksten, billederne og symbolerne igen så klik på dette link, som vises hver gang du ser et nyt kort .

Kort CVM: aaen_all_ yellow

9. Svarer denne beskrivelse af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å til din opfattelse?(Sæt ét kryds)

Ja, det passer fint med min opfattelse ...................................Åen er i en bedre tilstand end jeg troede ...............................Åen er i en dårligere tilstand end jeg troede .........................Jeg kender ikke noget til vandkvaliteten i Odense Å.............Ved ikke ................................................................................

Vi beder dig nu forestille dig, at miljømyndighederne foreslår at forbedre vandkvaliteten på en mindre del af Odense Å. Miljømyndighederne vil gerne vide om private husstande mener at dette forslag er meningsfyldt, og om husstandene vil bidrage til at betale for gennemførslen.

Forbedringerne er forbundet med omkostninger. Disse omkostninger skal dækkes ved et ekstra beløb, der opkræves over den årlige vandregning. Hvis forslaget besluttes iværksat, vil alle brugere af vand og alle bidragsydere til forureningen af åen (industri, landbrug og private husstande) skulle betale dette årlige beløb.

Vi beder dig om at tage følgende i betragtning, når du besvarer de efterfølgende spørgsmål om hvor meget din husstand er villig til at betale for forbedringer af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å:

a. En forbedring af vandkvaliteten medfører at den årlige vandregning stiger for at dække udgifterne til forbedringen. For at kunne opretholde den højere vandkvalitet skal det ekstra beløb betales hvert år fremover.

b. Investeringen og stigningen i vandregningen vil starte i 2008, men der vil gå flere år før forbedringen vil være som vist.

c. Beløbet betales som et tillæg til den årlige vandregning som husstanden betaler nu. Det beløb du vælger er således hele husstandens samlede betaling for denne forbedring.

d. Det ekstra beløb som din husstand er villig til at betale vil ændre og begrænse dine og din husstands muligheder for at købe andre ting og tjenester.

59

e. Beløbet vil kun blive anvendt til denne forbedring. Forbedringen vil ikke påvirke drikkevandkvaliteten.

f. Beløbet betales for en forbedring af denne strækning af Odense Å. Forslaget omhandler ikke forbedringer af andre strækninger af åen, af andre vandområder på Fyn eller andre steder.

60

Den strækning, der foreslås forbedret, udgør ca. 15 km ud af åens godt 60 km. Kvaliteten på strækningen ændres fra gul til blå tilstand. Strækningen ligger tæt på Odense by. Kortet nedenfor viser Odense Å og den forbedrede strækning.

Aaen_15km_blue

10. I nedenstående tabel beder vi dig igen om at vurdere hvilket beløb, din husstand maksimalt er villig til at betale årligt, som et ekstra beløb til vandregningen, for at vandkvaliteten på denne 15 km lange strækning af Odense Å ændres fra den nuværende gule tilstand til den blå tilstand. Det er kun denne strækning som ændres, og resten af Odense Å vil fortsat være i den gule tilstand. Vi beder dig igen om at overveje dit svar nøje. Husk, din husstand vil skulle betale dette beløb hvert år.

Sæt venligst et kryds.

0 kr 560 kr 1200 kr 4880 kr 20 kr 600 kr 1280 kr 5250 kr 40 kr 640 kr 1350 kr 5630 kr 80 kr 680 kr 1430 kr 6000 kr 110 kr 710 kr 1500 kr 6380 kr 150 kr 750 kr 1690 kr 6750 kr 190 kr 790 kr 1880 kr 7130 kr 220 kr 820 kr 2060 kr 7500 kr 260 kr 860 kr 2250 kr 7880 kr 300 kr 900 kr 2440 kr 8250 kr 340 kr 940 kr 2630 kr 8630 kr 380 kr 970 kr 3000 kr 9000 kr 410 kr 1010 kr 3380 kr >9000 kr 450 kr 1050 kr 3750 kr Andet, notér:

490 kr 1090 kr 4130 kr Ved ikke 520 kr 1130 kr 4500 kr

11. For dem der svarer 0 i spm 10: Hvorfor svarede du ”0 kroner” i det foregående spørgsmål? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.

61

Vigtigste Næst vigtigste

Forøgelsen af vandregningen er for høj sammenlignet med de beskrevne forbedringen af vandkvaliteten

Den forbedrede strækning af Odense Å ligger for langt væk fra min bopæl

Jeg bruger ikke denne strækning af Odense Å

Den nuværende tilstand på strækningen er god nok

Jeg tror ikke at vandkvaliteten forbedres som beskrevet

Jeg vil hellere betale for forbedringer af en anden strækning af Odense Å

Jeg vil hellere betale for forbedringen af en anden å

Jeg vil hellere anvende mine penge på andre ting

Jeg har ikke råd til at betale mere i vandregning, end jeg gør nu

Dem der bruger Odense Å skal betale for forbedringerne

Vandværket bør betale for forbedringen

Staten bør betale for dette

Vandregningerne er for høje allerede

Spørgsmålet var for svært a svare på

Andet

12. For dem der svarer mere end 0 i spm 10: Hvorfor er du, og din husstand, villig til at betale for forbedring af vandkvaliteten på denne strækning af Odense Å? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.

62

Vigtigste Næst vigtigste

Ændringen af netop denne strækningen af Odense Å vil være god og værdifuld for mig og min husstand

Ændringen af Odense Å vil være god og værdifuld for mig og min husstand

Jeg er interesseret i disse forbedringer uanset hvor meget de koster

Jeg er interesseret i de fordele som forbedringen vil medføre for andre udenfor min husstand

Alle mennesker bør kunne opleve bedre vandløb, uanset hvad de synes er bedst

Jeg vil være med til at beskytte vandmiljøet for de vilde dyr og planters skyld

Jeg føler at dette var det moralsk rigtige svar

Jeg forstod ikke spørgsmålet

Andet

13. Hvor sandsynligt tror du det er, at de beskrevne ændringer i vandkvaliteten faktisk vil indtræffe. Sæt et kryds

Sandsynligt

Forholdsvis sandsynligt

Forholdsvis usandsynligt

Usandsynligt

14. Hvor vanskeligt synes du det var at angive et beløb? Sæt et kryds

Meget vanskeligt

Vanskeligt

Hverken eller

Nemt

Meget nemt

63

Vi beder dig nu igen forestille dig, at miljømyndighederne vil forbedre tilstanden, men nu for hele Odense Å. Odense Å er ca. 60 km lang.

Forbedringen indebærer, at kvaliteten ændres fra den nuværende gule tilstand (vist på det foregående kort) til den blå tilstand som vist på kortet nedenfor.

CVM kort aaen_all_blue

15. I nedenstående tabel har vi igen angivet en række beløb. Vi beder dig nu om at sætte et kryds ud for det beløb, som din husstand maksimalt er villig til at betale som et ekstra beløb over den årlige vandregning for, at hele Odense Å ændres fra den nuværende gule tilstand til den blå tilstand. Vi beder dig om at overveje dit svar nøje. Husk, din husstand vil skulle betale dette beløb hvert år.

Sæt venligst et kryds.

0 kr 560 kr 1200 kr 4880 kr 20 kr 600 kr 1280 kr 5250 kr 40 kr 640 kr 1350 kr 5630 kr 80 kr 680 kr 1430 kr 6000 kr 110 kr 710 kr 1500 kr 6380 kr 150 kr 750 kr 1690 kr 6750 kr 190 kr 790 kr 1880 kr 7130 kr 220 kr 820 kr 2060 kr 7500 kr 260 kr 860 kr 2250 kr 7880 kr 300 kr 900 kr 2440 kr 8250 kr 340 kr 940 kr 2630 kr 8630 kr 380 kr 970 kr 3000 kr 9000 kr 410 kr 1010 kr 3380 kr >9000 kr 450 kr 1050 kr 3750 kr Andet, notér:

490 kr 1090 kr 4130 kr Ved ikke 520 kr 1130 kr 4500 kr

16. LINK: For dem der svarer 0 i spm 15: Hvorfor svarede du ”0 kroner” i det foregående spørgsmål? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.

64

Vigtigste Næst vigtigste

Forøgelsen af vandregningen er for høj sammenlignet med de beskrevne forbedringer af vandkvaliteten

Åen ligger for langt væk fra min bopæl

Jeg bruger ikke Odense Å

Den nuværende tilstand er god nok

Jeg tror ikke at vandkvaliteten vil forbedres som beskrevet

Jeg vil hellere betale for forbedringer af en anden å

Jeg vil hellere bruge mine penge på andre ting

Jeg har ikke råd til at betale mere i vandregning end jeg gør nu

Dem der bruger Odense Å skal betale for forbedringerne

Vandværket bør betale for forbedringen

Staten bør betale for dette

Vandregningerne er for høje allerede

Spørgsmålet var for svært a svare på

Andet

017. For dem der svarer mere end 0 i spm 15: Hvorfor er du, og din husstand, villig til at

betale for forbedring af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.

65

Vigtigste Næst vigtigste

Ændringen vil være god og værdifuld for mig og min husstand

Jeg er interesseret i disse forbedringer uanset hvor meget de koster

Jeg er interesseret i de fordele som forbedringen vil medføre for andre udenfor min husstand

Alle mennesker bør kunne opleve bedre vandløb, uanset hvad de selv synes er bedst

Jeg vil være med til at beskytte vandmiljøet for de vilde dyr og planters skyld

Jeg føler at dette var det moralsk rigtige svar

Jeg forstod ikke spørgsmålet

Andet

18. Hvor sandsynligt tror du det er, at de beskrevne ændringer i vandkvaliteten faktisk vil indtræffe? Sæt et kryds

Sandsynligt

Forholdsvis sandsynligt

Forholdsvis usandsynligt

Usandsynligt

19. Hvor vanskeligt synes du det var at angive et beløb? Sæt et kryds

Meget vanskeligt

Vanskeligt

Hverken eller

Nemt

Meget nemt

66

Vi beder dig nu forestille dig, at miljømyndighederne kommer med nogle mere detaljerede forslag til at forbedre vandkvaliteten i Odense Å, og at miljømyndighederne beder private husstande om at vælge mellem disse forslag. Ligesom før er forbedringerne forbundet med omkostninger. Disse omkostninger skal dækkes ved et ekstra beløb, der opkræves over den årlige vandregning. Hvis forslaget besluttes iværksat vil alle brugere af vand og alle bidragsydere til forureningen af åen (industri, landbrug og private husstande) skulle betale dette årlige beløb.

De foreslåede forbedringer indebærer, at kvaliteten ændres fra den nuværende gule tilstand (vist på det foregående kort) til forskellige kvaliteter for forskellige strækninger af Odense Å. Odense Å er som nævnt 60 km lang, og i forslagene til forbedring er åen delt i 3 strækninger. Vandkvaliteten er beskrevet for hver af disse strækninger.

Vi bruger de samme symboler, billeder og farver som tidligere i spørgeskemaet, og hvis du vil se disse igen, bedes du klikke på linket. Hvis du ikke kan huske hvad farverne på kortet viser, beder vi dig om at gå ind på linket for at være sikker på dette. GALLUP: LINK her til side med tegninger og billeder.

Du vil blive præsenteret for i alt 10 valgsituationer. I hver valgsituation bedes du vælge dit foretrukne alternativ. Du bedes vælge dit foretrukne alternativ under hensyntagen til, hvilken kvalitet du og din husstand foretrækker, og hvad I maksimalt er villige til årligt at betale for denne forbedring.

Vi beder dig igen om at tage følgende i betragtning når du foretager dine valg:

En forbedring af vandkvaliteten medfører at den årlige vandregning stiger for at dække udgifterne til forbedringen. For at kunne opretholde den højere vandkvalitet, skal det ekstra beløb betales hvert år fremover.

Investeringen og stigningen i vandregningen vil starte i 2008, men der vil gå flere år før forbedringen vil være som vist.

Beløbet betales som et tillæg til den årlige vandregning, som husstanden betaler nu. Det beløb du vælger er således hele husstandens samlede betaling for denne forbedring.

Det ekstra beløb som din husstand er villig til at betale vil ændre og begrænse dine og din husstands muligheder for at købe andre ting og tjenester.

Beløbet vil kun blive anvendt til denne forbedring. Forbedringen vil ikke påvirke drikkevandkvaliteten.

Beløbet betales for en forbedring af Odense Å. Forslaget omhandler ikke forbedringer af andre vandområder på Fyn eller andre steder.

20. Valg mellem alternative forslag for forbedring af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å

67

Der kommer nu i alt 10 valgsituationer. I hver valgsituation kan du vælge mellem 3 alternativer. Det er muligt at vælge den nuværende tilstand i hver valgsituation, mens de to øvrige alternativer er forskellige fra valgsituation til valgsituation. Vi beder dig om nøje at betragte hvert alternativ i hver valgsituation, og overveje om din husstand reelt er villig til at betale det ekstra årlige beløb for at opnå de beskrevne forbedringer af vandkvaliteten.

GALLUP 10 valgkort indsættes. CE_aaen. Nummerrækkefølge er vigtig.

21. Hvor vanskeligt synes du det var at foretage de 10 valg? Sæt et kryds

Meget vanskeligt

Vanskeligt

Hverken eller

Nemt

Meget nemt

22. Hvor sandsynligt tror du det er, at de beskrevne ændringer i de 10 valg faktisk vil indtræffe? Sæt et kryds

Sandsynligt

Forholdsvis sandsynligt

Forholdsvis usandsynligt

Usandsynligt

GALLUP: Spørgsmål 23 skal kun besvares, hvis den nuværende situation blev valgt i alle valgsituationer.

23. Hvorfor valgte du 'den nuværende situation' i alle valgspørgsmålene? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.

68

Vigtigste Næst vigtigste

Forøgelsen af vandregningen var generelt for høj sammenlignet med de beskrevne forbedringer af vandkvaliteten

Åen ligger for langt væk fra min bopæl

Jeg bruger ikke Odense Å

Den nuværende tilstand er god nok

Jeg tror ikke at vandkvaliteten forbedres som beskrevet

Jeg vil hellere betale for forbedringer af en anden å

Jeg vil hellere anvende mine penge på andre ting

Jeg har ikke råd til at betale mere i vandregning end jeg gør nu

Dem der bruger Odense Å skal betale for forbedringerne

Vandværket bør betale for forbedringen

Staten bør betale for dette

Vandregningerne er for høje allerede

Det var for svært at vælge

Andet

GALLUP: Spørgsmål 24 skal kun stilles til dem, der mindst én gang har valgt et andet alternativ end den nuværende situation – dvs. kun til dem, der ikke har fået spørgsmål 23.

24. For de øvrige: Hvorfor er du, og din husstand, villig til at betale for forbedringer af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å? Angiv venligst den vigtigste og næst vigtigste årsag hertil.

69

Vigtigste Næst vigtigste

Ændringerne vil være gode og værdifulde for mig og min husstand

Jeg er interesseret i disse forbedringer uanset hvor meget de koster

Jeg er interesseret i de fordele som forbedringen vil medføre for andre udenfor min husstand

Andre mennesker bør kunne opleve bedre vandløb, uanset hvad de synes er bedst

Jeg vil være med til at beskytte vandmiljøet for de vilde dyr og planters skyld

Jeg føler mig moralsk forpligtiget

Andet

25. Var der en eller flere forhold som du ikke tog hensyn til, da du gjorde dine valg? (Kryds af i de felter som gælder for dig)

□ Ja, jeg tog ikke hensyn til forbedringen af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å for den strækning der ligger tættest på Odense by

□ Ja, jeg tog ikke hensyn til forbedringen af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å for den midterste strækning(dvs. strækningen ved Brobyværk)”

□ Ja, jeg tog ikke hensyn til den strækning der ligger tættest på Arresø, dvs. den sydligste strækning af de tre

□ Ja, jeg tog ikke hensyn til den ekstra betaling over vandregningen

□ Nej, jeg tog hensyn til alle egenskaber, og valgte det alternativ som jeg samlet set foretrak.

26. I hvilken grad havde de nedenstående forhold betydning for dine valg i spørgsmålene, der omhandlede forskellige alternativer for vandkvaliteten i Odense Å?

(Sæt kun én markering i hver række)I høj grad I nogen

gradI ringe grad

Slet ikke

Ved ikke

70

Forbedringen af vandkvaliteten i Odense å generelt................................................................. Forbedringen af vandkvaliteten i Odense Å på en bestemt strækning....................................... Forbedringen for rekreative formål i Odense Å... Forbedringen af forholdene for dyr og planter i Odense Å ............................................... Afstanden fra min bopæl til Odense Å ................ Den ekstra vandregning (prisen)..........................

27. Kendte du Odense Å inden besvarelsen af dette spørgeskema – og bruger du åen? (Sæt et kryds)

□ Nej, jeg har aldrig hørt om Odense Å

□ Ja, jeg har hørt om Odense Å, men jeg har aldrig været ved åen

□ Ja, jeg kender Odense Å,. men jeg har ikke brugt åen rekreativt i løbet af det sidste år

□ Ja, jeg kender Odense Å, og jeg har været ved åen en til to gange i løbet af det sidste år

□ Ja, jeg kender Odense Å, og jeg bruger ofte Odense Å rekreativt (mere end en gang månedligt)

28. Hvor langt bor du fra Odense Å (sæt et kryds)

□Afstanden fra min bolig til Odense Å er køreafstand

□Afstanden fra min bolig til Odense Å er cykelafstand

□Afstanden fra min bolig til Odense Å er gåafstand

29. Har du oplevet nogle hændelser med vandforurening i løbet af sommeren 2008? (Sæt gerne flere kryds)Ja, jeg har oplevet algeopblomstringer og ubehagelig lugt fra vandet, der hvor jeg har været

Jeg har oplevet badeforbud

Jeg har læst om forurenet vand, algeopblomstringer og/eller iltsvind i pressen

Jeg har hørt/set programmer i TV/radio om forurenet vand, algeopblomstringer og/eller iltsvind

Nej, jeg har ikke oplevet nogen hændelser

Ja, jeg har oplevet hændelser med forurening, men mit generelle indtryk er, at der er få problemer med vandforurening

71

Vi vil nu spørge dig om hvilke rekrative områder du bruger i nærheden af hvor du bor - og om du kan placere disse på kortene nedenfor.

TIL GALLUP: Her skal kortet der er brugt i adressekortlægningen indledningsvist sættes ind igen, og de skal klikke på det for at vise hvor de tager hen for at besøge naturområder.

30. Først vil vi gerne have oplyst hvilke, åer og vandløb du besøger/bruger?

Kort ligesom adressekortHvis du ikke kan placere området på kortet kan du skrive navnet her...............................Jeg besøger/bruger ikke åer og vandløb rekreativt ......

31. Hvilke søer bruger du rekreativt?

Kort ligesom adressekort. Hvis du ikke kan placere området på kortet kan du skrive navnet her...............................Jeg besøger/bruger ikke søer rekreativt: ......

32. Hvilke fjorde, eller dele af fjorde du besøger/bruger rekreativt?

Kort ligesom adressekort. Hvis du ikke kan placere området på kortet kan du skrive navnet her..............................Jeg besøger/bruger ikke fjorde/dele af fjorde rekreativt: ......

33. Hvilke kyststrækninger besøger/bruger du rekreativt?

Kort ligesom adressekort. Hvis du ikke kan placere området på kortet kan du skrive navnet her..............................Jeg besøger/bruger ikke kyststrækninger rekreativt: ......

34. Betaler du eller nogen i din husstand for lystfiskertegn?Ja ..............................................................................................................Nej............................................................................................................Ved ikke/ ønsker ikke at svare

35. Betaler du, eller nogen i din husstand, fiskekort til Odense Å med tilhørende vandløb?

Ja ..............................................................................................................Nej............................................................................................................Ved ikke/ ønsker ikke at svare

72

Din besvarelse er registreret og du deltager nu i lodtrækningen.

Du finder aktuel information samt svar på de oftest stillede spørgsmål på http://gaf.tns-gallup.dk/.

Tak for din deltagelse!

Med venlig hilsen

G@llupForum

73

Appendix B. The generic water quality ladder used in the common valuation in AQUAMONEY

Source: adapted from Hime and Bateman (2009): Copyright protected.