Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 103–114 | Cite as

Integrated hydro-economic assessment of restoration of the Alexander-Zeimar River (Israel-Palestinian Authority)

  • Nir Becker
  • Eran Friedler
Original Article

Abstract

This paper examines hydro-economic aspects of the Alexander-Zeimar basin. The Alexander-Zeimar River is a transboundary river originating in the Palestinian Authority and flowing through Israel to the Mediterranean Sea. Since the 1950s, the river has been used as a sewage outlet. The major purpose of this study is to estimate the costs and benefits derived from a restoration plan, which has been in place in the river since the mid-1990s. A hydrological model combined with market and non-market valuation (travel cost method) techniques was used to estimate the condition of the situation before and after the restoration project was implemented. The total restoration plan was compared to alternative partial plans. Interestingly, a cost–benefit analysis on the different restoration options revealed that only a complete cleanup of the river results in a positive net benefit ($0.49–3.23 million annually).

Keywords

Cost–benefit analysis Integrated river basin management Travel cost method 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was performed within the framework of OPTIMA (Optimization for Sustainable Water Management) and funded by the EU (Contract No. INCO-CT-2004-509091). The authors further wish to thank David Troupin from the Technion for producing the maps and Jane Morrison from McGill Univ. and Jennifer Helgeson from the London School of Economics as well as the editor and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Alston JM, Larson DM (1993) Hicksian vs. Marshallian welfare: why do we do what we do? Am J Agric Econ 75:764–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artis M, Carrion JL, Moreno R, Pons G, Surinach J (2000) Efficiency measurements in infrastructure projects: cost-benefit analysis of the Tunnel of Cadi. Int J Transp Econ 27(3):401–423Google Scholar
  3. Azevedo CD, Herriges JA, Kling CL (2003) Combining revealed and stated preferences: consistency tests and their interpretations. Am J Agric Econ 85:525–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee T, Srivastava RK (2009) Application of water quality index for assessment of surface water quality surrounding integrated industrial estate-Pantnagar. Water Sci Technol 60(8):2041–2053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beechie T, Pess G, Roni P, Giannico G (2008) Setting river restoration priorities: a review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing actions. N Am J Fish Manag 28:891–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernauer T (2002) Explaining success and failure in international river management. Aquat Sci 64:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernhardt ES, Sudduth EB, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Meyer JL, Alexander G, Follastad-Shah J, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Lave R, Rumps J, Pagano L (2007) Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners. Restor Ecol 15(3):482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhat MG (2003) Application of non-market valuation to the Florida Keys marine reserve management. J Environ Manage 67:315–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boardman A, Greenberg D, Vining A, Wiemer D (2006) Cost benefit analysis: concepts and practice, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall publishing, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  10. Bordalo AA, Teixeira R, Wiebe WJ (2006) A water quality index applied to an international shared river basin: the case of the Douro river. Environ Manag 38(6):910–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bratrich C, Truffer B, Jorde K, Markard J, Meier W, Peter A, Schneider M, Wehrli B (2004) Green hydropower: a new assessment procedure for river management. River Res Appl 20:865–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cesario FJ (1976) Value of time in recreation benefit studies. Land Econ 51:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eiswerth ME, Englin J, Fadali E, Shaw WD (2000) The value of water levels in water-based recreation: a pooled revealed preference/contingent behavior model. Water Resour Res 36:1079–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Englin J, Shonkwiler JS (1995) Modeling recreation demand in the presence of unobservable travel costs: toward a travel price model. J Environ Econ Manage 29:368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eom Y, Larson DM (2006) Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information. J Environ Econ Manag 52:501–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fedra K (2002) GIS and simulation models for water resources management: a case study of the Kelantan River, Malaysia. GIS Dev 6(8):39–43Google Scholar
  17. Fedra K (2005) Water resources simulation and optimization: a web based approach. IASTED International conference on modelling, simulation, and optimization. Oranjestad, Aruba, Aug 2005, pp 250–255Google Scholar
  18. Fink A (2008) How to conduct your own survey. SAGE publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  19. Florio M, Vignetti S (2005) Cost-benefit analysis of infrastructure projects in an enlarged European union: returns and incentives. Econ Change Restruct 38(3–4):179–210Google Scholar
  20. Friedler E, Juanico M (1995) Policy of water sources and quality management in the Alexander River. In: Brandais A (ed) Master plan for the recovery of the Alexander River. Report to the Administration for the Recovery of Israeli Rivers, pp 104–133, 271–279 (Hebrew)Google Scholar
  21. Guimarães MH, Sousa C, Garcia T, Dentinho T, Boski T (2011) The value of improved water quality in Guadiana estuary—a transborder application of contingent valuation methodology. Lett Spatial Resour Sci 4:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanley N, Bell D, Alvarez-Farizo B (2003) Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behaviour. Environ Resour Econ 24:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haruvi N, Shalhevet S, Bachmat Y, Freeman D, Tzfati A, Harusi K (2009) Estimates of water supply with different quality levels from competing sources: application for the Hefer Valley in Israel. Geogr Netw 3(1):1–13Google Scholar
  24. Hermans C, Erickson J, Noordewier T, Sheldon A, Kline M (2007) Collaborative environmental planning in river management: an application of multicriteria decision analysis in the White River Watershed in Vermont. J Environ Manag 84:534–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang J, Haab TC, Whitehead JC (1997) Willingness to pay for quality improvement: should revealed and stated preference data be combined? J Environ Econ Manage 34:240–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huppert DD (1999) Snake River salmon recovery: quantifying the costs. Contemp Econ Policy 17(4):476–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Israel Ministry of Health (2010) Public health regulations (wastewater effluent quality standards and wastewater treatment requirements), p 19 (Heb.)Google Scholar
  28. Kotchen MJ, Moore MR, Lupi F, Rutherford ES (2006) Environmental constraints on hydropower: an ex post benefit-cost analysis of dam relicensing in Michigan. Land Econ 82(3):384–403Google Scholar
  29. Lawlor J, McCarthy C, Scott S (2007) Investment in water infrastructure: findings from an economic analysis of a national programme. J Environ Plan Manag 50(1):41–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liou SM, Lo SL, Wang SH (2004) A generalized water quality index for Taiwan. Environ Monit Assess 96(1–3):35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Messner F, Zwirner O, Karkuschke M (2006) Participation in multi-criteria decision support for the resolution of a water allocation problem in the Spree River basin. Land Use Policy 23(1):63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nasser AM, Zaruk N, Tenenbaum L, Netzan Y (2003) Comparative survival of cryptosporidium, coxsackievirus A9 and Escherichia coli in stream, brackish and sea waters. Water Sci Technol 47:91–96Google Scholar
  33. Parparov A, Hambright KD, Hakanson L, Ostapenia A (2006) Water quality quantification: basics and implementation. Hydrobiologia 560(1):227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pesce SF, Wunderlin DA (2000) Use of water quality indices to verify the impact of Cordoba City (Argentina) on Suquia River. Water Resour 34(11):2915–2926Google Scholar
  35. Rosenberger RS, Loomis JB (1999) The value of ranch open space to tourists: combining observed and contingent behavior data. Growth Change 30:366–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schiff M, Winters LA (2002) Regional Cooperation, and the Role of International Organizations and Regional Integration. Policy Research Working Paper. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. Shapira DA, Mazor G (2004) Pollutants’ concentration in Israel Rivers. Annual report. The Ministry of Environment, Jerusalem IsraelGoogle Scholar
  38. Voorhees AS, Araki S, Sakai R, Sato H (2000) An ex post cost-benefit analysis of the nitrogen dioxide air pollution control program in Tokyo. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 50(3):391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang H, Shi Y, Kim Y, Kamata T (2011) Valuing water quality improvement in China. Policy Research Working Paper # 5766, Environment and Energy team. The World BankGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitehead JC, Dumas CF, Herstine J, Hill J, Buerger B (2008a) Valuing beach access and width with revealed and stated preference data. Working Papers 06-15, Department of Economics, Appalachian State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitehead JC, Subhrendu K, Pattanayak K, Van Houtven GL, Gelso BR (2008b) Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the non-market value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. J Econ Surv 22:872–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Palmer MA, Poff NL, Tarboton D (2005) River restoration. Water Resourc Res 41:W10301. doi: 10.1029/2005WR003985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and ManagementTel-Hai CollegeUpper GalileeIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Environmental, Water and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations