Hydrology and Earth System Sciences www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net 1027-5606 1607-7938 13 5 2009 10.5194/hess-13-675-2009 http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/13/675/2009/ http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/13/675/2009/hess-13-675-2009.html http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/13/675/2009/hess-13-675-2009.pdf 675 686 2009-05-27 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, Gwansk-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 develops a social-economic-engineering combined framework for decision making in water resources planning. This framework consists of four parts which are to spatially identify the grades on hydrological vulnerability (potential streamflow depletion and potential water quality deterioration), to evaluate the monetary values of improvements on hydrological vulnerability grades using the choice experiment method, to derive an alternative evaluation index (AEI) to quantify the effectiveness of all alternatives, and to combine the derived willingness-to-pays (WTPs) with the AEI and do the cost-benefit analysis of feasible alternatives. This framework includes the stakeholder participation in order to quantify the preferences with regard to management objectives (water quantity and quality) and WTPs of alternatives. Finally, the economic values of each alternative can be estimated by this study which combines the WTPs for improvements on hydrologic vulnerability grades with the AEI. The proposed procedure is applied in the Anyangcheon watershed which has been highly urbanized for past thirty years. As a result, WTPs are $0.24~$10.08/month-household for water quantity and $0.80~$8.60/month-household for water quality and residents of the five regions among six have higher WTPs for water quality improvement. Finally, since three of ten alternatives have BC>0, they can be proposed to the decision makers. This systematic screening procedure will provide decision makers with the flexibility to obtain stakeholders' consensus for water resources planning. Abrahams, N. A., Hubble, B. J., and Jordan, J. L.: Joint production and averting expenditure measures of willingness to pay: Do water expenditures really measure avoidance costs?, Am. J. Agric. Econom., 82(2), 427–437, 2000. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., and Williams, M.: Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 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. Bennett, J. and Blamey, R.: The Choice Modelling Approach to Non Market Valuation, Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2001. 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. Manage., 41, 179–192, 2001. Carson, R. T. and Mitchell, R. C.: The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies, Am. J. Agric. Econ., 75, 1263–1267, 1993. Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A., Koutsoyiannis, D., Sargentis, G.-F., and Hadjibiros, K.: Resolving conflicting objectives in the management of the Plastiras Lake: can we quantify beauty?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 507–515, 2005. Chung, E. S. and Lee, K. S.: Prioritization of water management for sustainability using hydrologic simulation model and multicriteria decision making techniques, J. Environ. Manage., 90(3), 1502–1511, 2009a. Chung, E. S. and Lee, K. S.: Identification of spatial ranking of hydrological vulnerability using multicriteria decision making techniques: Case study of Korea, Water Resour. Manage., published online, 2009b. 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, Pub. Admin. Rev., 37, 478–487, 1997. Diamond, P. and Hausman, J. A.: Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number?, J. Econ. Perspec., 8, 45–64, 1994. 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 D.C., 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. Survey, 15(3), 435–462, 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. Manage., 78, 183–193, 2006. Harrison, G. W.: Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: A critique of Kahneman and Knetsch, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 23, 248–257, 1992. Hensher, D. and Johnson, L.: Applied Discrete Choice Modeling, Wiley, New York, 1981. Howe, C. W. and Smith, M. G.: The value of water supply reliability in urban water systems, J. Envir. Econom. Manage., 26, 19–30, 1994. 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. Manage., 34, 79–99, 1997. Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J. L.: Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 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., 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. 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. Louviere, J. and Hensher, D.: On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling, Transport. Res. Rec., 890, 11–17, 1982. Louviere, J. and Woodworth, G.: Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data, J. Marketing Res., 20, 350–367, 1983. McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in: Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by: Zarembka, P., Academic Press, New York, 1973. Nakatani, J., Aramaki, T., and Hanaki, K.: Applying choice experiments to valuing the different types of environmental issues in Japan, J. Environ. Manage., 84, 362–376, 2007. OECD: OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews, OECD Environment Monographs 83, OECD, Paris, 1993. 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, Pub. Admin. Rev., 42, 339–345, 1982. Schulze, W. D., McClelland, G. H., Lazo, J. K., and Rowe, R. D.: Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values, Resour. Ener. Econ., 20, 163–178, 1998. Thomas, J. C.: Public involvement in public management: adapting and testing a borrowed theory, Pub. Admin. Rev., 50, 435–445, 1990. 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, doi:10.1029/2004WR003277, 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. Manage., 86, 308–318, 2008.