4.7 Article

Revealing the economic value of managed aquifer recharge: Evidence from a contingent valuation study in Italy

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 53, 期 8, 页码 6597-6611

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2016WR020281

关键词

managed aquifer recharge; groundwater; contingent valuation method; nonmarket valuation

资金

  1. MARSOL - Demonstrating Managed Aquifer Recharge as a Solution to Water Scarcity and Drought
  2. European Union's Seventh Program for research, technological development and demonstration [619120]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Managed aquifer recharge [MAR) is a promising water management tool toward restoring groundwater balance and securing groundwater ecosystem services (i.e., water for drinking, industrial or irrigation use, control of land subsidence, maintenance of environmental flows to groundwater dependent ecosystems, etc.). Obviously, MAR projects can improve the quality of lives of the people by several ways. Thus, from a social perspective, the benefits of MAR cannot and should not be based only on market revenues or costs. Although the value of groundwater, from a social perspective, has been a subject of socio-economic research, literature on the value of MAR per se is very limited. This paper, focusing on Italy which is a country with extensive utilization of MAR, aims to estimate the economic value of MAR and makes a first step toward filling this gap in the literature. For this purpose, the Contingent Valuation method was implemented to provide a monetary estimate and to explore the factors influencing people's attitude and willingness to pay for MAR. The results show that society holds not only use but also significant nonuse values, which are a part of the total economic value (TEV) of groundwater according to related research efforts. To this end, MAR valuation highlights its social importance for groundwater conservation and provides a solid basis for incorporating its nonmarket benefits into groundwater management policies and assessments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据