Water Resources Management

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 981–1000 | Cite as

Welfare Improvisation from the Receiving Waters of Urban Wastewater Systems in the Context of the Water Framework Directive

  • Stefanos Xenarios
  • Kostas Bithas


The compliance of wastewater authorities with the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC) although may highly contribute to a “good” ecological status in aquatic ecosystems, is alleged to require disproportionally high costs in relevance to the anticipated benefits. This is mainly due to the limited yet research in the assessment of the economic welfare derived by the compliance with the WFD. In this light, the direct and indirect economic benefits emerged by the attaining of WFD are investigated. The wastewater treatment plant of Athens (Greece) is demonstrated as a comprehensive pilot case.


Water framework directive Environmental benefits Economic valuation Welfare 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amir S (1995) The environmental cost of sustainable welfare. Ecol Econ 13:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Athens Stock Exchange (2007) Athens Water Supply and Sewage Co.
  3. Athens Water Supply and Sewerage Company S.A. (2007a) Annual Bulletin 2000, Athens 2001.
  4. Athens Water Supply and Sewerage Company S.A. (2007b) Annual Bulletin 2005, Athens June 206.
  5. Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) (1998) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the U.S., E.U., and developing countries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouwer R (2004) The concept of environmental and resource cost. Lessons learned from ECO2. In: Brouwerand R, Strosser P (eds) Environmental and resource cost and the water framework directive. An overview of European practices. RIZA Working Paper 2004. 112x, Amsterdam, HollandGoogle Scholar
  7. CD4WC D 1.1 (2004) Data Analysis-Full Scale Systems, TU Dresden (on behalf of CD4WC), Dresden. 264 pp,
  8. CD4WC Deliverable 1.2 (2004) Identification of interactions in present full-scale systems, BIOMATH (on behalf of CD4WC), Faculty of Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences; Ghent University.
  9. De Groot R, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services in SPECIAL ISSUE: the dynamics and value of ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological perspectives. Ecol Econ 41(2002):393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farber S, Costanza C, Wilson R (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41(3):375–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujita Y, Fujii A, Furukawa S, Ogawa T (2005) Estimation of willingness-to-pay (WTP) for water and sanitation services through contingent valuation method (CVM), a case study in Iquitos City, the Republic of Peru, JBICI Review No.11, March 2005, pp 59–87Google Scholar
  12. General Secretariat of National Statistical Services of Greece (2007) Indices.
  13. Genius M, Hatzaki E, Kouromichelaki E, Kouvakis G, Nikiforaki S, Tsagarakis KP (2008) Evaluating consumers’ willingness to pay for improved potable water quality and quantity. Water Resour Manag. doi:10.1007/s11269-008-9255-7. 0920–4741 (Print), 1573–1650 (Online)
  14. Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural recourse management: a review of principles, contexts, experience and opportunities. Agricultural Syst 55(2):173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heinz I, Pulido-Velazquez M, Lund JR, Andreu J (2007) Hydro-economic modeling in river basin management: implications and applications for the European Water Framework Directive. Water Resour Manag 21:1103–1125. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9101-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hennipman P (1985) Welfare economics and the theory of economic policy. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  17. Kontogianni A, Langford I, Papandreou A, Skourtos M (2003) Social preferences for improving water quality: an economic analysis of benefits from wastewater treatment. Water Resour Manag 17:317–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loomis J (1987) Expanding contingent value sample estimates to aggregate benefit estimates: current practices and proposed solutions. Land Econ 63(4):396–402, (Nov. 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mishan EJ (1981) Introduction to normative economics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Munda G (1996) Cost–benefit analysis in integrated assessment: some methodological issues. Ecol Econ 19(1996):157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ng Y (1980) Welfare economics. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  22. NOOA (1995) Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA panel’s no-vote recommendation. Discussion Paper 96–05, November 1995, Resources for the FutureGoogle Scholar
  23. Norberg J (1999) Linking nature’s services to ecosystems: some general ecological concepts. Ecol Econ 29(1999):183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nunes P, Breil M, Gambarelli G (2005) Economic valuation of on site material damages of high water on economic activities based in the city of Venice: results from a dose-response-expert-based valuation approach, FEEM Working Paper No. 53.05Google Scholar
  25. Pierson C, Castles F (2000) A welfare state. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Pigou AC (1960) The economics of welfare. Macmillan and Co. Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Ramirez R (1999) Stakeholder analysis and conflict management. In: Buckles D (ed) Cultivating peace: conflict and collaboration in natural resource management. International Development Research Centre and World Bank Institute, Ottawa, pp 101–126Google Scholar
  28. Shabman LA, Batie S (1978) Economic value of natural coastal wetlands: a critique. Coast Zone Manage J 4:231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sundberg S (2004) Replacement costs as economic values of environmental change: a review and an application to Swedish sea trout habitats. Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  30. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—UNFCCC (2008) Feeling the Heat.
  31. Vatn A, Bromley D (1994) Choices without prices without apologies. J Environ Econ Manage 26:129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. WATECO (2002) Guidance document and annexes. CISWorkingGroup 2.6 onWater and Economics, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  33. Wattage P, Soussan J (2003) Incorporating environmental value and externality in project evaluation as a sustainability indicator to evaluate Bangladesh Water Development. Water Resour Manag 17:429–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wei Y, Davidson B, Chen D, White R, Li B, Zhang J (2007) Can contingent valuation be used to measure the in situ value of groundwater on the North China plain? Water Resour Manag 21:1735–1749. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9123-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. WFD CIRCA (2007) The Information Exchange Platform.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economic and Regional DevelopmentPanteion UniversityAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations