A Value Transfer Approach for the Economic Estimation of Industrial Pollution: Policy Recommendations

  • P. KoundouriEmail author
  • N. Papandreou
  • M. Stithou
  • O. G. Dávila
Part of the Global Issues in Water Policy book series (GLOB, volume 7)


In order to make possible an economic estimation of industrial pollution, which is one of the main polluters in the Asopos River Basin (RB), another method that of Benefit Transfer (BT) was applied and is presented in this chapter. The fact that gathering primary site-specific data is costly and time-consuming has made BT a more and more popular alternative for the valuation of ecosystem goods and services and it offers a considerable potential in the light of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation. In a broad sense, BT method uses existing economic value estimates from one location to another similar site in another location. In this context, the objective of this chapter is to present an empirical application of the methodology of transfer value. A number of valuation studies in the European territory that have explored the impact of industry on water degradation are reviewed in order for a suitable ‘match’ to be made between the Asopos RB and a suitable existing valuation study from which to source economic value information and hence perform the valuation exercise. The chapter closes with conclusions and recommendations for policy design.


Benefit Transfer Asopos River Basin Water Framework Directive Industrial pollution Water quality and quantity 


  1. Baker, B., Metcalfe, P., Butler, S., Gueron, Y., Sheldon, R., & East, J. (2007). The benefits of Water Framework Directive programmes of measures in England and Wales. A Final Report to DEFRA re CRP Project 4b/c. NERA Economic Consulting and Accent.Google Scholar
  2. Bateman, I. J., Cole, M. A., Georgiou, S., & Hadley, D. J. (2006). Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: A case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. Journal of Environmental Management, 79(3), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergland, O., Magnussen, K., & Navrud, S. (1995). Benefit transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability (Discussion Paper#D-03/1995), Department of Economics and Social Sciences, The Agricultural University of Norway, Norway.Google Scholar
  4. Bergstrom, J. C., Boyle, K. J., & Yabe, M. (2004). Trading taxes vs. paying taxes to value and finance public environmental goods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 28(4), 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birol, E., Karousakis, K., & Koundouri, P. (2006). 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., Koundouri, P., & Kountouris, Y. (2008). Integrating wetland management into sustainable water resources allocation: the case of Akrotiri wetland in Cyprus. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birol, E., Hanley, N., Koundouri, P., & Kountouris, Y. (2009). Optimal management of wetlands: Quantifying trade‐offs between flood risks, recreation, and biodiversity conservation. Water Resources Research, 45(11).Google Scholar
  8. Birol, E., Koundouri, P., & Kountouris, Y. (2010). Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water-scarce regions: Combining economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis and discounting. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 839–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Liljenstolpe, C. (2003). Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.Google Scholar
  13. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2006a). Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management, 78, 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanley, N., Colombo, S., Tinch, D., Black, A., & Aftab, A. (2006b). Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: Are benefits transferable? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 33(3), 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, E. K., Moran, D., & Vinten, A. J. A. (2008). A framework for valuing the health benefits of improved bathing water quality in the River Irvine catchment. Journal of environmental management, 87(4), 633–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kataria, M., Hasler, B., Christensen, T., Martinsen, L., Nissen, C., Levin, G., Dubgaard, A., Ladenburg, J., Bateman, I., & Hime, S. (2009). Scenario Realism and Welfare Estimates in Choice Experiments – Evidence from a study on implementation of the European Water Framework Directive in Denmark. Paper presented at the EAERE 17th Annual Conference, Session: Stated Preferences 5, 24–27 June 2009, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Martin-Ortega, J., Brouwer, R., & Berbel, J. (2009, August) Economic analysis of spatial preferences heterogeneity of water quality. Contributed Paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference. Beijing, China, pp. 16–22.Google Scholar
  19. Navrud, S., & Ready, R. (Eds.). (2007). Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Rinaudo, D. J., (2003). Economic assessment of groundwater protection, Groundwater restoration in the potash mining fields of Alsace, France (Case study report No. 1. BRGM/RC-52324-FR), Orléans: BRGM.Google Scholar
  21. Rosenberger, R. S., & Johnston, R. J. (2009). Methods, trends, and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. COST E45 EUROFOREX Training Course, Benefit Transfer – Introduction and Methods, May 13–17 2009, Norway.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2000). Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: in-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research, 36, 1097–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Technical Chamber of Greece. (2009) The problem of Asopos River-Suggestions for facing it. Report, July 2009. (In Greek)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Koundouri
    • 1
    Email author
  • N. Papandreou
    • 2
  • M. Stithou
    • 1
  • O. G. Dávila
    • 1
  1. 1.Athens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece
  2. 2.Andreas G. Papandreou FoundationAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations