Abstract
This chapter analyses the most relevant economic literature on water uses in Italy. In particular, the economic value of water is investigated in four main sectors: urban water services, agriculture, recreational industry and energy. As far as the urban water sector is concerned, most studies analyse the consequences of the introduction of the so-called Legge Galli, a complex reform in water governance started in 1994. The studies on water use in the agricultural sector are divided mainly in two branches: the use values of water (which was found to range from 0.3 to 1.2 €/m3) and the total economic costs and benefits of certain measures, such as for drought management or pollution reduction. For what concerns industry and energy, the economic value of water is rarely evaluated, especially in the former sector, while the majority of studies seem to focus on the environmental impact of production by considering water use and consumption (water footprint). In the chapter, instead, the point of view of the consumer is primarily analysed in relation to the recreational sector, where the willingness to pay for better environmental and recreational services connected to water was estimated between €3 and €1056 per year. Nevertheless, the literature review points out the lack of cross-sectional studies of sectors. This lacuna is probably connected to the limited integration among the actors that manage water resources and a too fragmented governance. Solving these issues will guarantee a better allocation of water resources both among users and over time, thus targeting the challenges of adaptation and resilience in the water-energy-food nexus.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For another overview of the uses of water in Italy, albeit carried out from a different and mainly non-economic perspective, see also, in this volume, Chap. 1 by Benedini and Rossi.
- 2.
Following the guidelines suggested by ISTAT (2019), the civil use of water is to be understood not only as the domestic consumption of families, but as the totality of all its “non-productive uses”: including its application in public buildings and offices, in services, in activities related to industrial or agricultural businesses insistent on urban areas, and other public necessities such as for washing roads.
- 3.
According to Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, a unit of population equivalent corresponds to the organic biodegradable load having a five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of 60 g of oxygen per day.
- 4.
Data are downloadable from the website of TERNA, a large energy transmission system operator: <www.terna.it/it/sistema-elettrico/dispacciamento/fonti-rinnovabili>
- 5.
The data were compiled by Lehner et al. (2011) and are distributed by the Global Water System Project (GWSP) and by the Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN).
- 6.
Some of those indicators were not calculated before the reform; in those cases, the earliest available data were generally compared to the newest one in order to evaluate the reform effect.
- 7.
The total number of ATOs currently established has been retrieved from the website of the Italian Ministry of the Environment (Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare): <www.minambiente.it/direttive/ambiti-territoriali-ottimali>
- 8.
Economies of scale are positive economic performances which arise when a unit increases in input results in a more than proportional increase in input. Economies of scope, instead, are savings that an industry may obtain by producing jointly two or more output/services.
- 9.
Including not only water but also electricity and natural gas.
- 10.
The authors (Miniaci et al. 2008) set the threshold of water poverty whenever the budget for the water services was higher than 1.44% of the family potential budget.
- 11.
Both surface and groundwater ones.
- 12.
On the notion of water footprint and its application to Italy’s trade in agricultural goods see also, in this volume, Chap. 10 by Tamea, Antonelli and Vallino.
- 13.
Cooking was not taken into account in the previous figures.
- 14.
Biomass sources, concentrated solar power, nuclear and hydropower pumping stations were excluded from the study.
- 15.
Which, back to 2015, was providing around 16% of total production against the 76.9% of fossil fuels.
- 16.
The authors based their work on the data on water footprint produced by Mekonnen et al. (2015); therefore, such data have not been reported as not specific for the Italian case study.
- 17.
The authors proposed the innovative fee for reforming the methodology in use to charge water abstractions for hydropower in Italy to implement the polluter-pay principle (PPP) required by the new European regulations (namely the Water Framework Directive). The directive requires water abstraction charges to reflect both the value of the resource and the environmental impact caused by water users. For this reason, the proposed fee is based on the simple assumption that “any form of environmental tax should be at least proportional to the environmental damage that it is caused” (de Carli et al. 2014, p. 144). The particularity of the methodology described by the authors is the capacity to take in account not only the “intensive” component of the impact (i.e., the magnitude and gravity) but also the “extensive” one (i.e., the grade of dispersion of the impact from the cause or, simply, the length of the river affected).
References
Alberini, A., Zanatta, V., & Rosato, P. (2007). Combining actual and contingent behavior to estimate the value of sports fishing in the Lagoon of Venice. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3), 530–541.
Albino, V., & Kühtz, S. (2004). Enterprise input–output model for local sustainable development—The case of a tiles manufacturer in Italy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41(3), 165–176.
Ali, Y., et al. (2018). Carbon and water footprint accounts of Italy: A Multi-Region Input-Output approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1813–1824.
Asquer, A. (2009). On the many ways Europeanization matters: The implementation of the water reform in Italy (1994–2006). Munich: CESifo.
Boatto, V., Menguzzato, A., & Rossetto, L. (2008). Valutazione monetaria dei benefici esterni dell’agricoltura biologica. Roma: INEA.
Bonacina, M.,Cretì, A., Mariotto, C., & Pontoni, F. (2014). What determines efficiency? An analysis of the Italian water sector. An Analysis of the Italian Water Sector (October 24, 2014) Working Paper n.72, Working Paper Series ‐ ISSN 1973‐0381. IEFE, Bocconi (Milano).
Bonamente, E., et al. (2016). Environmental impact of an Italian wine bottle: Carbon and water footprint assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 560, 274–283.
Brouwer, R. (2004). Assessment of environmental and resource costs in the Water Framework Directive, Information Sheet prepared by Drafting Group ECO2, Common Implementation Strategy, Working Group 2B. Brussels: European Commission, DG Environment.
CIEMAT. (2000). ExternE – Externalities of Energy. Vol. XX: national implementation Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General XII, Science Research and Development. Available at http://www.externe.info/externe_d7/?q=node/41.
Danesi, L., Passarelli, M., & Peruzzi, P. (2007). Water services reform in Italy: Its impacts on regulation, investment and affordability. Water Policy, 9(1), 33–54.
Fraquelli, G., & Giandrone, R. (2003). Reforming the wastewater treatment sector in Italy: Implications of plant size, structure, and scale economies. Water Resources Research, 39(10).
Fraquelli, G., & Moiso, V. (2004). La formazione degli Ambiti territoriali nel servizio idrico e il problema della dimensione “ottimale” (Hermes working paper). Retrieved from http://www.hermesricerche.it
Galioto, F., et al. (2013). An assessment of disproportionate costs in WFD: The experience of Emilia-Romagna. Water, 5(4), 1967–1995.
Galioto, F., et al. (2017). The impact of new regulations on water pricing in the agricultural sector: A case study from northern Italy. Agricultural Economics Review, 18(2), 77–95.
Guerrini, A., et al. (2017). Levers supporting tariff growth for water services: Evidence from a contingent valuation analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 207, 23–31.
Guerrini, A., Romano, G., & Leardini, C. (2018). Economies of scale and density in the Italian water industry: A stochastic frontier approach. Utilities Policy, 52, 103–111.
ISTAT. (2014). Utilizzo della risorsa idrica a fini irrigui in agricoltura, VI Censimento Generale dell’Agricoltura. Roma.
ISTAT, Istituto Nazionale di statistica (2019). Utilizzo e qualità della risorsa idrica in Italia. Rome.
ISTAT, Istituto Nazionale di statistica. (2020). Le statistiche ISTAT sull’acqua. https://www.ISTAT.it/it/files//2020/03/Le-statistiche-ISTAT-sull’acqua.pdf visited March 2020.
Lehner, B. et al. (2011). Global reservoir and dam database, version 1 (GRanDv1): Dams, revision 01. Palisades: NASA socioeconomic data and applications center (SEDAC). Accessed January 2020.
Massarutto, A. (2003). Water pricing and irrigation water demand: Economic efficiency versus environmental sustainability. European Environment, 13(2), 100–119.
Massarutto, A. (2007). Water pricing and full cost recovery of water services: Economic incentive or instrument of public finance? Water Policy, 9(6), 591–613.
Massarutto, A. (Ed.) (2012). La riforma della regolazione dei servizi idrici in Italia – L’impatto della riforma: 1994–2011 (Research report no. 9). www.green.unibocconi.eu/wps/wcm/connect/f37540ab-fbd7-4818-87a2-d45ce14e8e75/Research+Report+9.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=kM4jHXR
Massarutto, A. (2015). L’Acqua. Un dono della natura da gestire con intelligenza. Bologna: il Mulino.
Massarutto, A. & de Carli, A. (2009). I costi economici della siccità: il caso del Po. Economia delle fonti di Energia e dell’Ambiente 2, 123–143. https://doi.org/10.3280/EFE2009-002008.
Massarutto, A., & Pontoni, F. (2014). Rent seizing and environmental concerns: A parametric valuation of the Italian hydropower sector. Energy Policy, 78, 31–40.
Masserini, L., Romano, G., & Corsini, L. (2018). Investigating attitudes towards water savings, price increases, and willingness to pay among Italian university students. Water Resources Management, 32(12), 4123–4138.
Mekonnen, M. M., Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2015). The consumptive water footprint of electricity and heat: A global assessment. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 1(3), 285–297.
Miglietta, P. P., Morrone, D., & De Leo, F. (2018). The water footprint assessment of electricity production: An overview of the economic-water-energy nexus in Italy. Sustainability, 10(1), 228.
Miniaci, R., Scarpa, C., & Valbonesi, P. (2008). Distributional effects of price reforms in the Italian utility markets. Fiscal Studies, 29(1), 135–163.
Musolino, D., de Carli, A., & Massarutto, A. (2017). Evaluation of socio-economic impact of drought events: The case of Po river basin. European Countryside, 9(1), 163–176.
Paccagnan, V. (2007). On combining stated preferences and revealed preferences approaches to evaluate environmental resources having a recreational use (IEFE working paper no. 4). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1031630
Pérez-Blanco, C. D., et al. (2018). Economic impacts of irrigation-constrained agriculture in the lower Po Basin. Water Economics and Policy, 4(01), 1750003.
Pontoni, F., Goltara, A., de Carli, A., Massarutto, A. (2014). Hydropower production and environmental regulation: Opting for a performance-based tax approach. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 2, 137–152.
Pontoni, F., et al. (2016). Choice experiments and environmental taxation: An application to the Italian hydropower sector. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 3, 99–118. https://doi.org/10.3280/EFE2016-003009.
Proto, M., & Supino, S. (1999). The quality of environmental information: A new tool in achieving customer loyalty. Total Quality Management, 10(4–5), 679–683.
Raggi, M., & Viaggi, D. (2009). Valutazione degli effetti di politiche di tariffazione e di scenari di mercato nel consorzio di bonifica della romagna occidentale. Acqua e agricoltura in Italia. Valutazioni di scenari e strumenti di supporto alle decisioni: Valutazioni di scenari e strumenti di supporto alle decisioni, 95.
Romano, G., Guerrini, A., & Campedelli, B. (2015). The new Italian water tariff method: A launching point for novel infrastructures or a backwards step? Utilities Policy, 34, 45–53.
Ruini, L., et al. (2013). Water footprint of a large-sized food company: The case of Barilla pasta production. Water Resources and Industry, 1, 7–24.
Travisi, C. M., & Nijkamp, P. (2004). Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents Nota di Lavoro, No. 100.2004, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Milano. Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/117981.
Verlicchi, P., et al. (2012). A project of reuse of reclaimed wastewater in the Po Valley, Italy: Polishing sequence and cost benefit analysis. Journal of Hydrology, 432, 127–136.
Willig, R.D. (1976). Consumer’s surplus without apology. The American Economic Review, 66(4), 589–597.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vaglietti, G., Pontoni, F., de Carli, A., Massarutto, A. (2021). The Uses and Value of Water in Italy: Evidence from Selected Case Studies in Italy, with a Particular Focus on Irrigation, Industry and Hydropower. In: Turrini, P., Massarutto, A., Pertile, M., de Carli, A. (eds) Water Law, Policy and Economics in Italy . Global Issues in Water Policy, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69075-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69075-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69074-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69075-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)