Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net 1812-2108 1812-2116 5 5 2008 10.5194/hessd-5-2817-2008 http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/5/2817/2008/ http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/5/2817/2008/hessd-5-2817-2008.html http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/5/2817/2008/hessd-5-2817-2008.pdf 2817 2857 2008-10-16 A social-economic-engineering combined framework for decision making in water resources planning E. S. Chung cool77@snu.ac.kr K. S. Lee Engineering Research Institute, Seoul National University, 36-203, San 56-1, Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu Seoul, 151-742, Republic of Korea Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University, 38-415, San 56-1, Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu Seoul, 151-742, Republic of Korea This study presents a new methodology not only to evaluate willingness to pays (WTPs) for the improvement of hydrological vulnerability using a choice experiment (CE) method but also to do a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of some feasible alternatives combing the derived WTPs with an alternative evaluation index (AEI). The hydrological vulnerability consists of potential streamflow depletion (PSD), and potential water quality deterioration (PWQD) and can be quantified using a multi-criteria decision making technique and pressure-state-response (PSR) framework. PSD and PWQD not only provide survey respondents with sufficient site-specific information to avoid scope sensitivity in a choice experiment but also support the standard of dividing the study watershed into six sub-regions for site-fitted management. Therefore CE was applied to six regions one after the other, in order to determine WTPs for improvements on hydrological vulnerability considering the characteristics which are vulnerability, location, and preferences with regard to management objectives. The AEI was developed to prioritize the feasible alternatives using a continuous water quantity/quality simulation model as well as multi-criteria decision making techniques. All criteria for alternative performance were selected based on a driver-pressures-state-impact-response (DPSIR) framework, and their weights were estimated using an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In addition, the AEI that reflects on residents' preference with regard to management objectives was proposed in order to incite the stakeholder to participate in the decision making process. Finally, the economic values of each alternative are estimated by a newly developed method which combines the WTPs for improvements on hydrologic vulnerability with the AEI. This social-economic-engineering combined framework can provide the decision makers with more specific information as well as decrease the uncertainty of the CBA. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., and Williams, M.: Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 26, 271–292, 1994. Baarsma, B. E.: The valuation of the Ijmeer reserve using conjoint analysis, Environ. Resour. Econ., 25, 343–356, 2003. Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R., and Swanson, J.: Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002. Bardossy, A. and Bogardi, I.: Network design for the spatial estimation of environmental variables, Appl. Math. Comput., 12, 339–369, 1983. Bennet, J. and Blamey, R.: The Choice Modelling Approach to Non Market Valuation, Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2001. Bruen, M.: System analysis: A new paradigm and decision support tools for the water framework directive, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 739–749, 2008. Carlsson, F. and Martinsson, P.: Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 41, 179–192, 2001. Carson, R. T. and Mitchell, R. C.: The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies, Am. J. Agr. Econ., 75, 1263–1267, 1993. Cau, P. and Paniconi, C.: Assessment of alternative land management practices using hydrological simulation and a decision support tool: Arborea agricultural region, Sardinia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 811–1823, 2007. Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A., Koutsoyiannis, D., Sargentis, G. F., and Hadjibiros, K.: Resolving conflicts objectives in the management of the Plastiras Lake: Can we quantify beauty?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 507–515, 2005. Collins, A., Rosenberger, R. and Fletcher, J.: The economic value of stream restoration, Water Resour. Res., 41, W02017, doi:10.1029/2004WR003353, 2005. Cupps, R. A.: Emerging problems of citizen participation, Public Admin. Rev., 37, 478–487, 1997. Diamond, P. and Hausman, J. A.: Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number?, J. Econ. Perspect, 8, 45–64, 1994. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: Guidelines on Strategic Planning and Management of Water Resources, United Nations, New York, 2004. European Environment Agency: Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999. Freeman III, A. M.: The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, second ed. Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 23–26, 2003. Garrod, G. D. and Willis, K. G.: The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study. Ecol. Econ., 21, 45–61, 1997. Gordon, J., Chapman, R., and Blamey, R.: Assessing the Options for Canberra Water Supply: An Application of Choice Modeling in the Choice Modeling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Edward Elgar, 2001. Greene, W. H.: Econometric Analysis, fourth ed. Prentice-Hall, London, 2002. Hanley, N., Mourato, A., and Wright, R.: Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental evaluation?, J. Econ. Surv., 15, 3, 2001. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., and Adamowicz, W.: Using choice experiments to value the environment, Environ. Resour. Econ., 11, 413–428, 1998. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., and Alvarez-Farizo, B.: Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: An application to the water framework directive, J. Environ. Manag., 78, 183–193, 2006. Harrison, G. W.: Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: A critique of Kahneman and Knetsch, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 23, 248–257, 1992. Hartmann, L., Torno, C., Bogardi, I., and Higler, L.: Methodological Guidelines for the Integrated Environmental Evaluation of Water Resources Development, Unep/Unesco Project FP/5201-85-01, Paris, 1987. Hensher, D. and Johnson, L.: Applied Discrete Choice Modeling, Wiley, New York, 1981. Johnson, F. R., and Desvousges, W. H.: Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: Environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 34, 79–99, 1997. Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J. L.: Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 22, 57–70, 1992. Kong, K. S., Chung, E. S., Yoo, J. C., and Lee, K. S.: Estimating attributes value of alternatives applied for rehabilitation of hydrologic cycle of the Anyangcheon watershed, J. Korea Water Resour. Assoc., 39, 1031–1042, 2006. Kuhfeld, W. F., Tobias, R. D., and Garratt, M.: Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications, J. Market Res. Soc., 31, 545–557, 1994. Kuhfeld, W. F.: Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques, SAS Inst., Cary, N. C., 2003. Kwak, S. J., Yoo, S. H., and Kim, T. Y.: A constructive approach to air quality valuation in Korea, Ecol. Econ., 38, 327–344, 2001. Larichev, O. I. and Moshkovich, H. M.: ZAPROS-LM: A method and system for ordering multiattribute alternatives, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 82, 503–521, 1995. Lee, K. S. and Chung, E. S.: Development of integrated watershed management schemes for intensively urbanized region in Korea, J. HydroEnviron. Res., 1(2), 95–109, 2007. McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S., and Fields, D.: Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions, Risk Anal., 19, 497–510, 1999. McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in: Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by: Zarembka, P., Academic Press, New York, 1974. Nakatani, J., Aramaki, T., and Hanaki, K.: Applying choice experiments to valuing the different types of environmental issues in Japan, J. Environ. Manag., 84, 362–376, 2007. OECD: OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews, OECD Environment Monographs 83, OECD, Paris, 1993. OECD: Towards Sustainable Development: Environmental Indicators, OECD, Paris, 1998. Phelps, R. H. and Shanteau, J.: Livestock judges: How much information can an expert use?, Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 209–219, 1978. Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., and van de Giesen, N. C.: Identification of stakeholder perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine Basin using $Q$ methodology, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1097–1109, 2008. Rosener, J.: Making bureaucracy responsive: A study of impacts of citizen participation and staff recommendation on regulatory decision making, Public Admin. Rev., 42, 339–345, 1982. Roy, B. and Vincke, P.: Multi-criteria analysis: Survey and new directions, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 8(3), 207–218, 1982. Satty, T. L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980. Schulze, W. D., McClelland, G. H., Lazo, J. K., and Rowe, R. D.: Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values, Resour. Energy Econ., 20, 163–178, 1998. Steward, T. and Scott, L.: A scenario-based framework for multicriteria decision analysis in water resources planning, Water Resour. Res., 31, 2835–2843, 1995. Thomas, J. C.: Public involvement in public management: adapting and testing a borrowed theory, Public Admin. Rev., 50, 435–445, 1990. UNCSD (United Nations Commission on Sustainable, Development): Indicators of sustainable development: Framework and methodologies commission on sustainable development, Ninth Session, 16–27 April 2001, Background Paper No. 3, New York, UN, 2001. van den Belt, M.: Mediated Modeling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building, Island Press, 2004. Willis, K., Scarpa, R., and Acutt, M.: Assessing water company customer preferences and willingness to pay for service improvements: A stated choice analysis, Water Resour. Res., 41, W02019, 2005. Yoo, S. H., Kwak, S. J., and Lee, J. S.: Using a choice experiment to measure the environmental costs of air pollution impacts in Seoul, J. Environ. Manag., 86, 308–318, 2008. Yurdusev, M. A. and O'Connel, P. E.: Environmentally-sensitive water resources planning: 1. Methodology, Water Resour. Manag., 19, 375–397, 2005.