Public Preferences for Climate Change Adaptation Policies in Greece: A Choice Experiment Application on River Uses

  • Dimitrios Andreopoulos
  • Dimitrios Damigos
  • Francesco Comiti
  • Christian Fischer
Part of the Cooperative Management book series (COMA)


Climate change is a multidimensional issue with serious environmental and socio-economic implications. Mountain areas, in particular, show high vulnerability to climate change. Among others, alterations in temperature and precipitation can severely affect freshwater ecosystems, in terms of both quality and quantity. As a result, services provided by river ecosystems will deteriorate, affecting economic activities and social welfare. This study comprises one of the first attempts to monetize non-market benefits of adaptation to climate change impacts on mountainous rivers. In this direction, a choice experiment was conducted using a face-to-face survey to examine the preferences of Konitsa’s residents, a mountain settlement located in the Prefecture of Ioannina (Greece). Simple and extended Conditional Logit models were calibrated in order to analyze trade-offs of choices and to estimate the welfare effects of climate change adaptation measures. The resulting values and reliability considerations indicate that people support adaptation actions, being willing to pay for all river services.


Climate change River uses Choice experiment 


  1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alriksson, S., & Oberg, T. (2008). Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation a review of methods and applications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 15(3), 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., & Hett, T. (2002). Guidelines for the use of stated preference techniques for the valuation of preferences for non-market goods. UK, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. Bates, B. C., Kundzewicz, W. Z., Wu, S., & Palutikof, J. P. (2008). Climate change and water. Technical Paper VI of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC Secreteriat.Google Scholar
  5. Birol, E., Karousakis, K., & Koundouri, P. (2006a). Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birol, E., Karousakis, K., & Koundouri, P. (2006b). Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science Total Environment, 365(1–3), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bliem, M., Getzner, M., & Rodiga-Lassnig, P. (2012). Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. Journal Environmental Management, 30, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Valck, J., Vlaeminck, P., Liekens, I., Aertsens, J., Chen, W., & Vranken, L. (2012). Valuing landscape preferences for nature restoration: Drongengoed case study (Belgium). 129 EAAE Seminar, Castelldefels, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  9. Giannakopoulos, C., Kostopoulou, E., Varotsos, K. V., Tziotziou, K., & Plitharas, A. (2011). An integrated assessment of climate change impacts for Greece in the near future. Regional Environmental Change, 11(4), 829–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goibov, M., Schmitz, P. M., Bauer, S., & Ahmed, M. N. (2012). Application of a choice experiment to estimate farmers preferences for different land use options in northern Tajikistan. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gret-Regamey, A., Brunner, S. H., & Kienast, F. (2012). Mountain ecosystem services: Who cares? Mountain Research and Development, 32, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanemann, W. (1984a). Discrete continuous models of consumer demand. Econometrica, 52(3), 541–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanemann, W. (1984b). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiment with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanley, N., Wright, R., & Koop, G. (2002). Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: Climbing in Scotland. Environmental Resource Economics, 22(3), 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hensher, David, & Johnson, Les. (1981). Applied discrete choice modeling. New York, USA: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Hoyos, D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1595–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Juutinen, A., Mitani, Y., Mantymaa, E., Shoji, Y., Siikamaki, P., & Svento, R. (2011). Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application. Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1231–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanakoudis, V., & Tsitsifli, S. (2010). On-going evaluation of the WFD 2000/60/EC implementation process in the European Union seven years after its launching: Are we behind schedule? Water Policy, 12, 70–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Louviere, J., Street, D., Carson, R., Ainslie, A., Deshazo, J., & Cameron, T. (2002). Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: P Zerembka (ed). Frontiers in econometrics (Vol. 45: pp. 105–141). New York, USA: Academic press.Google Scholar
  22. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Washington, USA, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  23. Milly, P., Dunne, K., & Vecchia, A. (2005). Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature, 438, 347–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orme, B. K. 2010. Getting started with conjoint analysis. Strategies for product design and pricing research. Mandison, USA, WI: Research Publisher.Google Scholar
  25. Papageorgiou, K., Kassioumis, K., Blioumis, V., & Christodoulou, A. (2005). Linking quality of life and forest values in rural areas: An exploratory study of stakeholder perspectives in the rural community of Konitsa, Greece. Forestry, 78(5), 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearce, David, & Turner, Kerry. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment. London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.Google Scholar
  27. Philandras, C. M., Nastos, P. T., Kapsomenakis, J., Douvis, K. C., Tselioudis, G., & Zerefos, C. S. (2001). Long term precipitation trends and variability within the Mediterranean region. Natural Hazards Earth System Sciences, 11, 3235–3250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poirier, J., & Fleuret, A. (2010). Using the choice experiment method for valuing improvements in water quality: A simultaneous application to four recreation sites of a river basin. 59th conference of association francaise de science economique, nanterreuniversite.Google Scholar
  29. PRUDENCE (Prediction of Regional scenarios and Uncertainties for Defining European Climate change risk and Effects) (2007).
  30. Stournaras, G., Skourtos, M., Kontogianni, A., Yoxas, G., Machleras, A., & Nastos, P. (2011). Climatic changes and impacts on Greece’s water systems (pp. 127–152). The environmental, economic and social impacts of climate change in Greece. National Report. Bank of Greece Printing Works, Athens, Greece. Google Scholar
  31. Tait, P., Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., & Bicknell, K. (2012). Non-market valuation of water quality: Addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecological Economics, 75, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Train, Kenneth. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge, USA: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zander, K. K., & Garnett, S. T. (2011). The economic value of environmental services on indigenous-held lands in Australia. PLoS ONE, 6(8), 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitrios Andreopoulos
    • 1
  • Dimitrios Damigos
    • 2
  • Francesco Comiti
    • 1
  • Christian Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Science and TechnologyFree University of Bozen/BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.School of Mining and Metallurgical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations