Reducing acidification: the benefits of increased nature quality Investigating the possibilities of the Contingent Valuation Method Dr.ir. E.C.M. Ruijgrok,09/02

Acidification abatement leads to costs, but it also generates benefits: reduced health risks; less damage to buildings; less damage to crops; increased nature quality. monetarised €

Core question Can CVM be used to include the benefits of increased nature quality in Cost Benefit Analyses for acidification abatement scenarios? Method Trial and error; a CVM survey was set up and tested

Research questions 1. Which functions of nature are affected by acidification? 2. Can these functions be monetarised by means of CVM? 3. Is it possible to distinguish different nature benefits per acidification abatement scenario?

CO2 fixation Nitrogen storage Aluminium binding Binding heavy metals Recreational perception Non-use A previous study showed that the following functions are affected by acidification: CVM

What is CVM? survey method it measures willingness to pay

hypothetical market little story explaining the effects of acidification on nature to lain man Option A: realise improvement The government takes extra measures to reduce acidification to such an extent that nature is healthy again in the year 2030 a yearly donation per household Essential elements of CVM: non-use value description of the good payment vehicle Option B: prevent deterioration

Essential elements of CVM: perception value hypothetical market description of the good payment vehicle photos of affected and unaffected forests, health lands, fens, grass lands and dunes Entrance fees for nature areas depend on beauty Entrance fee per visit

Sources of bias 1. The design of the questionnaire influences the answers 2. Unfamiliarity with and difficulty of the questions 3. The respondent does not state his actual wtp ?

bidders zero bidders protest bidders ‘whole bidders’ Socially correct behaviour Provide the opportunity to say no Starting point Open ended questions Part whole Filter, zoom in Bias Precaution Register different types of bidders:

Distinguishing benefits per scenario Scenario A. Netherlands NEC, rest of the world Gothenburg Scenario B. Ammonium and nitrogen deposition minimized Scenario C. EU NEC, rest of the world Gothenburg Scenario D. All countries Gothenburg Scenario E. Netherlands extra strong policy, rest Gothenburg Dutch acidification abatement scenarios:

Abatement scenarios

Different paths to the same deposition level The scenarios differ little in biodiversity effects Physical differences cannot be explained to lain man nor be shown on photos CVM cannot distinguish benefits per scenario Extra question on time BUT:

Possible solution: Determine benefits of extreme scenarios Derive benefits of less extreme scenarios from these This requires agreements, decision rules

Pre Test and Preliminary results Findings: most respondents were familiar with acidification Euro leads to higher bids bids for sooner improvements Is acidification the biggest threat to nature? A small pre test was held in nature reserve Meijendel and the city centre of Zoetermeer Part whole bias ?

non-use value varied from € 0 to € 100 per hh per year Averge wtp : € 30 per hh per year Households: 6.2 million Rough estimate: € 207 million per year recreational use: average wtp 6 per visit Preliminary results

Comparing the different benefits of acidification Nature: ± € 207 million per year Health: € 900 million per year (2010) Ground water contamination: € 60 million in total (200 years) Damage to materials: € 59 million per year

Conclusion Recommendations The benefits of nature are worth investigating CVM can be used to estimate the non-use and recreational benefits of nature resulting from acidification abatement CVM is not suited for distinguishing benefits per abatement scenario if scenarios differ little Decision rules for derivation are needed For a Europe wide application adaptations are needed, paying attention to sources of bias: Which?