A Choice Experiment for the Estimation of the Economic Value of the River Ecosystem: Management Policies for Sustaining NATURA (2000) Species and the Coastal Environment

  • P. Koundouri
  • R. Scarpa
  • M. Stithou
Part of the Global Issues in Water Policy book series (GLOB, volume 7)


The valuation method of Choice Experiments (CEs) is often used for the economic valuation of natural areas with several nonmarket features that are either degraded or under-degradation. This method can be used to obtain estimates of Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) for the sustainability of several features of natural ecosystems. In particular, the CE method is a survey-based nonmarket valuation technique which can be used to estimate the total economic value of an environmental good in the form of a stock or a service flow as well as the value of its component attributes. Particularly, the bundle of improvements that have been valued in the Asopos water catchment and presented in this chapter is a mixture of use and non-use values. These include: (a) environmental conditions described in terms of ecological status in all water bodies of the catchment, (b) impact on the local economy in terms of tourism/recreation, demand for local production and cost of living for households and (c) impact on human health described as availability of water with a quality and quantity sufficient for satisfying different local uses. It should be also noted that the survey has been administered in samples of respondents from both the Asopos catchment area (more rural) and the Athens area (more urban), since there is the belief that residents of the Asopos River Basin (RB) are not the only ones who would benefit from the environmental improvements taking place in Asopos area. From a broader policy perspective the goal is to derive estimates of values to inform a cost-effectiveness analysis for the determination of the optimal program of measures as suggested in the content of Article 11 of Water Framework Directive (WFD).


Non market valuation Choice experiments Asopos River Basin Environmental degradation Water quality and quantity 


  1. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2000). Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. 1997/0067 (COD), C5-0347/00.Google Scholar
  2. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.Google Scholar
  3. Dimaras, A., Mastrogiannis, F., & Damigos, D. (2010). Estimation of the cost of pollution of Asopos River. MSc dissertation, National Technical University of Athens, School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering. (In Greek)Google Scholar
  4. Ferrini, S., & Scarpa, R. (2007). Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(3), 342–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Laoudi, A., Tentes, G., & Damigos, D. (2011). Groundwater damage: A cost-based valuation for Asopos River basin. Proceedings of the 3rd International CEMEPE & SECOTOX Conference Skiathos, June 19–24, 2011, ISBN 978-960-6865-43-5.Google Scholar
  6. Loizidou, M. (2009). Environmental impact assessment for a central processing unit for the industrial wastewater of Asopos area and the urban wastewater of the municipality of Avlonas. National Technical University of Athens, School of Chemical Engineering. (In Greek)Google Scholar
  7. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  8. Papadiochou, O., Triandafyllou, M., & Damigos, D. (2011). Estimation of the value of water in the Asopos basin using contingent valuation method. MSc dissertation, National Technical University of Athens, School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering. (In Greek)Google Scholar
  9. Passali, D. (2009). Industrial pollution and community-based mobilization in the Asopos River. MA Dissertation, Department of Geography, King’s College London.Google Scholar
  10. Rose, J. M., & Bliemer, M. C. J. (2009). Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transport Reviews, 29, 587–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sándor, Z., & Wedel, M. (2001). Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Scarpa, R., Notaro, S., Louviere, J., & Raffaelli, R. (2011). Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in Alpine Grazing Commons. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(3), 813–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Athens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece
  2. 2.Waikato Management SchoolHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations