Environmental Benefits of Wastewater Treatment: An Economic Valuation

  • F. Hernandez-Sancho
  • M. Molinos Senante
  • R. Sala-Garrido
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


The need of economic research into the design and implementation of policies for the efficient management of water resources has been emphasized by the European Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/UE). The efficient implementation of policies to prevent the degradation and depletion of water resources requires determining their value in social and economic terms and incorporating this information into the decision-making process. A process of wastewater treatment has many associated environmental benefits. However, these benefits are often not calculated because they are not set by the market. Nevertheless, the valuation of these benefits is necessary to justify a suitable investment policy and the contributions existing in the literature are very limited. In this paper, we propose a methodology based on the estimation of shadow prices for the pollutants removed in a treatment process. This value represents the environmental benefit (avoided cost) associated with undischarged pollution. This is a pioneering approach to the economic valuation of wastewater treatment. The comparison of these benefits with the internal costs of the treatment process will provide a useful indicator for the feasibility of wastewater treatment projects.


shadow prices environmental benefits wastewater treatment economic valuation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Birol E. Karousakis K. Koundouri P. 2006. Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science of the Total Environment 365: 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Färe R. Grosskopf S. Lovell C.A.K. Pasurka C. 1989. Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 71 (1): 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Färe R. Grosskopf S. Lovell C.A.K. Yaisawarng S. 1993. Derivation of shadow prices for undesirable outputs: a distance function approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 75 (2): 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Färe R. Grosskopf S. Tyteca D. 1996. An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms — application to fossil — fuel — fired electric utilities. Ecological Economics 18: 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ha N.V. Kant S. Maclaren V.W. 2008. Shadow prices of environmental outputs and production efficiency of household-level paper recycling units in Vietnam. Ecological Economics 65 (3): 98–110.Google Scholar
  6. Hetemäki L. 1996. Essays on the Impact of Pollution Control on a Firm: A Distance Function Approach. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 609.Google Scholar
  7. Koundouri P. 2000. Three approaches to measuring natural resources scarcity: theory and application to groundwater. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Economics University of Cambridge UK.Google Scholar
  8. Mitchell R.C. Carson R.T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Reig E. Picazo A. Hernández F. 2001. The calculation of shadow prices for industrial wastes using distance functions: An analysis for Spanish ceramic pavement firms. International Journal of Production Economics 69: 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shephard R.W. 1970. Theory of Cost and Production Functions, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Schimmoller L. Bellamy B. Curl J. 2008. Indirect Potable Reuse: Balancing Cost and Benefits. IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition, Vienna.Google Scholar
  12. Yaisawarng S. Klein J.D. 1994. The effects of sulfur dioxide controls on productivity change in the U.S. electric power industry. Review of Economics and Statistics 76 (3): 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Hernandez-Sancho
    • 1
  • M. Molinos Senante
    • 1
  • R. Sala-Garrido
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Valencia, Campus dels TarongersValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of MathUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations