Socio-economic valuation of water-level change

Hugo Coops acknowledgements: Roy Brouwer (RIZA), Antoon Kuyper, Theo Claassen (Wetterskip Fryslan)

Present days water-level management in the Netherlands

Priorities: - safety from flooding - economic carrier: infrastructure, drinking water, recreation, agriculture - landscape and nature

Costly operation aimed at optimizing different functions Adverse ecological effects rehabilitation of natural WLFs

WLF rehabilitation impact compensation financial consequences Cost/benefit analysis (CBA)

Cost-Benefit Analysis of water-level change

Costs: Adapting WL-dependent structures (dams, weirs, bridges, bank protection constructions, houses, harbours, sluices) Loss of agricultural benefits Ground value Compensation costs Benefits: Maintenance cost for navigation routes & bank protection More natural landscape: clear water, shorelines, biodiversity Production (fish, ) Public appreciation Some benefits may be attained by technical means, at higher investment

Cost-Benefit Analysis of water-level change

Case study: Fluctuating water-levels in the Frisian lake system

Case study: Frysln

Cost-benefit analysis commissioned by Regional Water Authority Public appreciation inquiry Problem: Ecological degradation & eutrophication Economic impacts of water-level change New water policy (flexibility), changes in supply Changed public acceptance
1876 1976

1. Hydrology

a. b. a. b. a. a. b. c. d. a. b. c. d. e. a. b. a. a. b. a. b.

Prevent flooding of levees Prevent water nuisance in polders Sufficient inlet capacity Sufficient discharge capacity Sufficient water transport Shoreline vegetation (reedbeds) Good water quality Pike stock Bank management Shoreline vegetation (reedbeds) Good water quality Submerged vegetation Otter habitat Great reed warbler habitat Prevent flooding Prevent low groundwater levels Prevent harvest reduction Critical passage heights under bridges Navigation channel depth Critical passage heights under bridges in summer Navigation channel depth in summer

Functions and targets

2. Hydrology 3. Hydrology 4. Ecology

5. Nature

6. Urban areas 7. Agriculture 8. Transport 9. Recreation

Hydrological function: flooding of levees

0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 -0.20 1/3 1/10 1/30 1/100 1/300 1/1000

Scenario x Reference

-3
1/3

-2
1/10

-1
1/30

0
1/100

1
1/300

2
1/1000

Ecological functions
Area reedbeds (% of area) Area of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (% of area) Water quality (P and N concentration) Northern pike (kg young pike/ha) Shoreline sustainability (index)
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 WLF (m) 0,4 0,5 0,6

reed area (m)

Hr,max = Hmax Hr,min = Hmin-0.7

Br = (Hr,max Hr,min Hcliff)/Ti + verge

reedbelt width

-3
1%

-2
4%

-1
8%

0
10%

1
14%

2
17%

Ti = slop e

Zmax = (lnE0 lnEmin)/tot

Hsav,min = Hr,max Hsav,max = Zmax SAV width

Bsav = (Hsav,min Hsav,max)/Ti

-3
2%

-2
5%

-1
9%

0
10%

1
20%

2
30%

Nature
Area reedbeds (% of area) Area of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (% of area) Water quality (P and N concentration) Northern pike (kg young pike/ha) Otter habitat (potential population size) Great reed warbler (potential breeding population size)

Urban areas
80000 cumulative built area 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 elevation of built area

5%

-3
10

-2
5

-1
2

0
1

1
1/2

2
1/5

Agriculture
6000 production loss (euro/ha) 5500 5000 4500 4000 -0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

target level (m NAP)

-3
-5%

-2
-2%

-1
-1%

0
1%

1
2%

2
5%

Transport and recreation

100 % bridges < critical height 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 increase 1% highest WL (winter)

-3
0.3

-2
0.15

-1
0.05

0
-0.05

1
-0.15

2
-0.3

100 % shallow navigation route 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 decrease 1% lowest WL (summer)

-3
0.3

-2
0.15

-1
0.05

0
-0.05

1
-0.15

2
-0.3

Costs and benefits of water-level alternatives

Function Parameter Total Navigation Recr.nav. Comm.nav. Agriculture Harvest value Urban W Foundations Flooding Ecology Bank mgmt Reedbeds W Transp W transport Polders Outlet Inlet Hydrol. Flooding

Measure Dredging Elevate bridges Dredging Elevate bridges Compensation Reconstruction Construct levees Management Planting reedbeds Pumping station Pumping capacity Sluices Increase levees
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Alternative 5 Alternative 4 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Ref 100 150

Million

What is the socio-economic value of natural water levels in the Friese Boezem?
- How to measure: willingness to pay - Study of ecologically-engineered canal banks - Interviewers bias

RIZA-BD RWS study: 521 face-to-face interviews August 15-27, 2002 Three recreational locations: Earnewald, De Potten, Galamadammen 50 questions (15-20 minutes) Origin, activities and travel costs Perception of present landscape Attitude and willingness to pay for more natural water-level management

Results (perception)
80% holidaymakers 15% first time in the area 98% plans to return to the area 45% sailers/boaters, 17% cyclists Average appreciation on scale 1-10: 8 Important landscape characteristics: quietness, nature, clear water, mooring opportunities, sites for swimming

Results (knowledge, attitudes and preferences of WLM)

61% not aware of fixed WL 64% prefers natural WLM, 28% prefers fixed WLM, 9% no preference 68% (n= 216) of 64% willing to pay extra taxes (average 90,-/year) for more natural WLs 55% (n= of 32% not willing to pay extra taxes, is 99) willing to pay through other ways (tourist tax)

Water-level change questions: -Is huge investment justifiable: short term cost vs. long-term benefit? -How to include soft variables? -Who has the benefit and how to approach them? -Alternatives? General: -CBA increasingly required in environmental impact assessment -socio-economic analysis part of CBA -EU: catchment plans