Riverscape and Groundwater Preservation: A Choice Experiment

Abstract

This study presents a quantitative approach to support policy decision making for the preservation of riverscapes, taking into account the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the EC Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) concerning the protection of waters against nitrate pollution from agricultural sources. A choice experiment was applied to evaluate the benefits, as perceived by inhabitants, of the implementation of policies aiming to reduce the concentration of nitrates in groundwater, preserve the riverscape by maintaining a minimum water flow and increasing hedges and woods along the Serio River in central northern Italy. Findings suggested that people were particularly concerned about groundwater quality, probably because it is strongly linked to human health. Nevertheless, it was interesting to observe that people expressed a high willingness to pay for actions that affect the riverscape as a whole (such as the minimum water flow maintenance plus reforestation). This is probably due to the close connection between the riverscape and the functions of the river area for recreation, health purposes, and biodiversity preservation.

Appendix: Choice Experiment Introduction

Interventions for the Improvement of Water Body Quality and of the Rural Environment

The Regione Lombardia is willing to establish practices to improve water and environmental quality in rural areas. These interventions will be related to

• 1. The quality of the river ecosystem.

• 2. Groundwater quality.

• 3. Re-afforestation and rural hedge planting.

Before starting these policies, the Regione would like to know the opinion of its citizens with regard to the type of interventions that should be realized and the costs that could be supported by the population.

For each of the above objectives, the following alternatives are considered:

Quality of the River Ecosystem

• (a) Guarantee of a minimum instream flow of 20 % in every water body (river). This would insure good conservation of the river fauna (e.g., good presence of fish) and water quality. Keeping such an objective would imply quite high costs given that some economic activities would have to considerably reduce water withdrawal in some periods of the year.

• (b) Guarantee of a minimum instream flow of 10 % in every water body (river). This would imply some conservation of the river fauna (e.g., presence of fish) and water quality. Keeping such an objective would imply lower costs than the previous case (20 % minimum instream flow).

• (c) Maintain the current situation without any maintenance of minimum instream flow in rivers so that in certain periods, drought could threaten the flora and fauna. This choice would not imply any damage to the economic activities that rely on the river water for production.

Quality of Groundwater

• (a) The presence of nitrates in groundwater at a concentration lower than 10 mg/l. This would insure the maximum level of water quality, making tap water drinkable for all without restrictions for babies. To achieve this target, very high constraints on agricultural activities and zootechnology are necessary, meaning a consistent increase in production costs. It will be necessary to give high compensation to the farmers to avoid discontinuation of their activities. If farmers were to discontinue their activity, the majority of milk consumed would have to be imported.

• (b) The presence of nitrates in groundwater at a concentration between 10 and 50 mg/l. This concentration of nitrates would make water drinkable, but with precautions for babies. The constraints for farmers would be less and therefore the compensation for their business losses lower.

• (c) The presence of nitrates in groundwater which is not guaranteed and could be higher than 50 mg/l. In this scenario, the water taken directly from artesian wells would not be suitable for drinking and cooking purposes or it should be necessary to bear high depuration costs before introducing water in aqueducts. This policy standard does not imply costs for farmers’ compensation.

Re-afforestation and Rural Hedge Planting

• (a) A 10 % increase in the extent of countryside hedges. This would imply a substantial improvement of the landscape quality, the environment, and the fauna, but at the cost of high subsidies to farmers.

• (b) A 5 % increase in the extent of countryside hedges. This would imply a fair (discrete) improvement of the landscape quality, the environment, and the fauna, and the cost of subsidies to farmers would be lower.

• (c) No intervention.

Given the actual economic situation, all costs of the proposed policies would be paid in the form of a new yearly tax for every family in the interested territory.

We will now show you some alternative hypotheses of intervention, characterized by different levels of achievable environmental quality and their cost.

We ask you to indicate which, among each of the following sets of alternatives, is your preferred solution.