Managing River Fish Biodiversity Generates Substantial Economic Benefits in Four European Countries

  • Carsten RiepeEmail author
  • Jürgen Meyerhoff
  • Marie Fujitani
  • Øystein Aas
  • Johannes Radinger
  • Sophia Kochalski
  • Robert Arlinghaus


Ecosystems and biodiversity produce benefits to society, but many of them are hard to quantify. For example, it is unclear whether European societies gain benefits from experiencing rivers that host high native biodiversity. Without such knowledge, monetary investments into ecologically oriented river management plans are difficult to justify. The objective of this study was to reveal how the public in four European countries values ecological characteristics of domestic rivers and the outcomes of hypothetical river basin management plans designed to improve river ecosystems, particularly fish biodiversity. We conducted a choice experiment among the populations in Norway, Sweden, Germany, and France. We found similar preference structures in all countries with high marginal willingness-to-pay for improvements of abiotic river attributes (increased accessiblity of the river banks, improved bathing water quality, decreased river fragmentation). Citizens also benefited from certain fish species occurring in a river with native salmonid species being more valued than nonnatives, particularly in Norway, and from the degree of a river’s native biodiversity. Welfare measures calculated for selected river basin management plans (policy scenarios) revealed societal benefits that were primarily derived from ecological river management whereas a scenario focusing on hydroelectricity production generated the lowest utility. We conclude that ecological river management may produce high nonmarket economic benefits in all study countries, particularly through the management of abiotic river attributes and the restoration of declining or extinct fish species. Our results help to inform decisions on restoration efforts by showcasing the benefits that these measures have for the public.


Choice experiment Economic values River basin management plan River fish conservation Native biodiversity Hydropower dams 



This study was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG; grant to R.A., number AR 712/4-1) within the project SalmoInvade in the BiodivERsA 2012-2013 Pan-European call (supported by the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program). R.A. also received funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the project Besatzfisch (grant number 01UU0907) in the Programme for Social-Ecological Research and through the EU’s Horizon 2020 program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement (No 642893). We are grateful to Ulf Liebe, Julian Sagebiel, Wolfgang Bandilla, Michael Braun and to our colleagues at Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin for insightful comments on the study concept and data interpretation. We would also like to thank Dorothée Behr, Julien Cucherousset, Jörgen Johnsson, Kjetil Hindar, all other members of the SalmoInvade project and the team of Language Connect for assisting with the translation of the questionnaire and for discussing its content. Special thanks go to Frederik Funke, Marco Reich, Alexandra Wachenfeld and all others at LINK, forsa, and Norstat for collecting the data and to all study participants for their kind cooperation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures in this study involving human participants were conducted according to the ethical standards of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and in compliance with national data protection acts.


  1. Aas Ø, Cucherousset J, Fleming IA et al. (2018) Salmonid stocking in five North Atlantic jurisdictions – identifying drivers and barriers to policy change Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 28:1451–1464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ADM Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute e. V. (2018) The ADM-Sampling-System for Telephone Surveys. Accessed 30 May 2018
  3. Ahtiainen H, Pouta E, Artell J (2015) Modelling asymmetric preferences for water quality in choice experiments with individual-specific status quo alternatives Water Resour Econ 12:1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alfredsen K, Harby A, Linnansaari T, Ugedal O (2012) Development of an inflow-controlled environmental flow regime for a Norwegian river River Res Appl 28:731–739. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arlinghaus R, Engelhardt C, Sukhodolov A, Wolter C (2002) Fish recruitment in a canal with intensive navigation: implications for ecosystem management J Fish Biol 61:1386–1402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Artell J, Huhtala A (2017) What are the benefits of the Water Framework Directive? Lessons learned for policy design from preference revelation Environ Resour Econ 68:847–873. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Auerbach DA, Deisenroth DB, McShane RR et al. (2014) Beyond the concrete: accounting for ecosystem services from free-flowing rivers Ecosyst Serv 10:1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belaire JA, Westphal LM, Whelan CJ, Minor ES (2015) Urban residents’ perceptions of birds in the neighborhood: biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and disservices Condor 117:192–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BfN Bundesamt für Naturschutz (ed) (2010) German action plan for the conservation and restoration of the European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio). Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  10. Birol E, Hanley N, Koundouri P, Kountouris Y (2009) Optimal management of wetlands: quantifying trade-offs between flood risks, recreation, and biodiversity conservation. Water Resour Res 45:
  11. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM (2013) Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models Transp Res Part B 58:199–214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Börger T, Hattam C (2017) Motivations matter: behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods Ecol Econ 131:64–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brouwer R (2008) The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs J Environ Plan Manag 51:597–614. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collen B, Whitton F, Dyer EE et al. (2014) Global patterns of freshwater species diversity, threat and endemism Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:40–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper AR, Infante DM, Daniel WM et al. (2017) Assessment of dam effects on streams and fish assemblages of the conterminous USA Sci Total Environ 586:879–889. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Couto TBA, Olden JD (2018) Global proliferation of small hydropower plants – science and policy Front Ecol Environ 16:91–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cucherousset J, Olden JD (2011) Ecological impacts of non-native freshwater fishes Fisheries 36:215–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daigle RM, Haider W, Fernández-Lozada S et al. (2016) From coast to coast: public perception of ocean-derived benefits in Canada Mar Policy 74:77–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Jager AL, Vogt JV (2010) Development and demonstration of a structured hydrological feature coding system for Europe Hydrol Sci J 55:661–675. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Dinter J, Bechthold A, Boeing H et al. (2016) Fish intake and prevention of selected nutrition-related diseases Ernährungs Umschau 63:148–154. Google Scholar
  22. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO et al. (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 81:163–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. Accessed 31 Oct 2016
  24. European Commission (2014) Report from the commission to the Council and the European parliament on the outcome of the implementation of the Eel Management Plan. Accessed 25 Jul 2018
  25. European Commission (2017) WFD: Timetable for implementation. Accessed 9 Jan 2017
  26. European Environment Agency (2018) European waters - assessment of status and pressures. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  27. Eurostat (2015) Census data for the online populations. Accessed 30 May 2018
  28. Freyhof J, Brooks E (2011) European red list of freshwater fishes. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P et al. (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity Biol Lett 3:390–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gozlan RE, Britton JR, Cowx I, Copp GH (2010) Current knowledge on non-native freshwater fish introductions J Fish Biol 76:751–786. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanley N, Wright RE, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006) Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive J Environ Manag 78:183–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heckel C, Glemser A, Meier G (2014) Das ADM-Telefonstichproben-System. In: ADM Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute e. V. (ed) Stichproben-Verfahren in der Umfrageforschung. Springer, Wiesbaden, Germany, pp 137–166Google Scholar
  34. Hering D, Borja A, Carstensen J et al. (2010) The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future Sci Total Environ 408:4007–4019. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hindar K (2003) Wild Atlantic salmon inEurope: status and perspectives. In: Gallaugher P, Wood L (eds) The World Summit on Salmon. Continuing Studies in Science, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, pp 47–52Google Scholar
  36. Holmlund CM, Hammer M (1999) Ecosystem services generated by fish populations Ecol Econ 29:253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huet M (1949) Aperçu des relations entre la pente et les populations piscicoles des eaux courantes Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Hydrol 11:332–351. Google Scholar
  38. Jefferson RL, Bailey I, Laffoley Dd´A et al. (2014) Public perceptions of the UK marine environment Mar Policy 43:327–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jobstvogt N, Hanley N, Hynes S et al. (2014) Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity Ecol Econ 97:10–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kalinkat G, Cabral JS, Darwall W et al. (2017) Flagship umbrella species needed for the conservation of overlooked aquatic biodiversity Conserv Biol 31:481–485. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kataria M (2009) Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers Energy Econ 31:69–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kochalski S, Riepe C, Fujitani M, et al. (2019) Public perception of river fish biodiversity in four European countries. Conserv Biol 33:164–175.
  43. Lawrence ER, Kuparinen A, Hutchings JA (2016) Influence of dams on population persistence in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) Can J Zool 94:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lenders HJR, Chamuleau TPM, Hendriks AJ, et al. (2016) Historical rise of waterpower initiated the collapse of salmon stocks. Sci Rep 6.
  45. Liebich KB, Kocik JF, Taylor WW (2018) Reclaiming a space for diadromous fish in public psyche and sense of place Fisheries 43:231–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liu P, Lien K, Asche F (2016) The impact of media coverage and demographics on the demand for Norwegian salmon Aquac Econ Manag 20:342–356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  48. Marschak J (1960) Binary choice constraints on random utility indicators. In: Arrow KJ, Karlin S, Suppes P (eds) Stanford Symposium on Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA, pp 312–329Google Scholar
  49. McClenachan L, Matsuura R, Shah P, Dissanayake STM (2018) Shifted baselines reduce willingness to pay for conservation. Front Mar Sci 5.
  50. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  51. Meyerhoff J, Boeri M, Hartje V (2014) The value of water quality improvements in the region Berlin–Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency Water Resour Econ 5:49–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Neteler M, Bowman MH, Landa M, Metz M (2012) GRASS GIS: A multi-purpose open source GIS Environ Model Softw 31:124–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nichols WJ (2014) Blue mind. Back Bay Books, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. Nieminen E, Hyytiäinen K, Lindroos M (2016) Economic and policy considerations regarding hydropower and migratory fish. Fish Fish.
  55. Norwegian Environment Agency (2017) Protection plan for water resources. Accessed 20 Jan 2017
  56. Olsen SB, Meyerhoff J (2016) Will the alphabet soup of design criteria affect discrete choice experiment results? Eur Rev Agric Econ.
  57. Papworth SK, Rist J, Coad L, Milner-Gulland EJ (2009) Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation Conserv Lett 2:93–100. Google Scholar
  58. Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries Trends Ecol Evol 10:430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pett TJ, Shwartz A, Irvine KN et al. (2016) Unpacking the people–biodiversity paradox: a conceptual framework Bioscience 66:576–583. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poe GL, Giraud KL, Loomis JB (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions Am J Agric Econ 87:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Poff NL, Schmidt JC (2016) How dams can go with the flow Science (80-) 353:1099–1100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Polizzi C, Simonetto M, Barausse A et al. (2015) Is ecosystem restoration worth the effort? The rehabilitation of a Finnish river affects recreational ecosystem services Ecosyst Serv 14:158–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ruud AA, Fjeldstad H-P (2015) Vannforskriften og norsk vannkraftproduksjon. Kan miljødesign og funksjonsmål gi bedre planprosesser? VANN 152–162.
  65. Sagebiel J, Glenk K, Meyerhoff J (2017) Spatially explicit demand for afforestation For Policy Econ 78:190–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation Ecosyst Serv 12:1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Scarpa R, Rose J (2008) Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 253–282.
  68. Shwartz A, Turbé A, Simon L, Julliard R (2014) Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: an experiment Biol Conserv 171:82–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Soga M, Gaston KJ (2016) Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions Front Ecol Environ 14:94–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Swedish Environment Law Miljöbalk (1998:808) (2017) Accessed 20 Jan 2017
  71. Szałkiewicz E, Jusik S, Grygoruk M (2018) Status of and perspectives on river restoration in Europe: 310,000 Euros per hectare of restored river. Sustain 10
  72. Tockner K, Pusch M, Borchardt D, Lorang MS (2010) Multiple stressors in coupled river-floodplain ecosystems Freshw Biol 55:135–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Train K (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. UNESCO (2016) ISCED: International standard classification of education. Accessed 31 Oct 2016
  75. White M, Smith A, Humphryes K et al. (2010) Blue space: the importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes J Environ Psychol 30:482–493. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Winemiller KO, McIntyre PB, Castello L et al. (2016) Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong Science (80-) 351:128–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wolter C (2015) Historic catches, abundance, and decline of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in the River Elbe Aquat Sci 77:367–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature (2001) The status of wild Atlantic salmon. Accessed 7 Dec 2016
  79. Zarfl C, Lumsdon AE, Berlekamp J et al. (2015) A global boom in hydropower dam construction Aquat Sci 77:161–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carsten Riepe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jürgen Meyerhoff
    • 2
  • Marie Fujitani
    • 1
    • 3
  • Øystein Aas
    • 4
    • 5
  • Johannes Radinger
    • 1
    • 6
  • Sophia Kochalski
    • 1
  • Robert Arlinghaus
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Biology and Ecology of FishesLeibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland FisheriesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Landscape Architecture and Environmental PlanningTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Institutional and Behavioral Economics Working Group, Leibniz-Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT)BremenGermany
  4. 4.Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, FakkelgardenLillehammerNorway
  5. 5.Faculty of Biosciences and Natural Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  6. 6.GRECO, Institute of Aquatic Ecology, University of Girona, M. Aurèlia CapmanyGironaSpain
  7. 7.Division of Integrative Fisheries Management, Albrecht-Daniel-Thaer-Institute of Agriculture and Horticulture & Integrative Research Institute for the Transformation of Human-Environment SystemsFaculty of Life Sciences Humboldt-Universität zuBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations