Extrapolating the benefits arising from the compliance of urban wastewater systems with the Water Framework Directive

The innovative and evolutionary principles of Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) towards the “good” ecological status of the water bodies, comprise a burdensome issue for most of the member states in European Union. In particular, the European Water Supply and Sewerage companies which are in a major extent responsible for the environmental impacts in water bodies, argue for a very costly and rigid goal-setting of the implied for the achievement of the so called “good” water quality status. On the other hand, the environmental, social and economic benefits derived from the adoption of Water Framework Directive principles, are not clearly defined because of the difficulty to define and further on assess the multiple ecological functions occurring in water bodies. This paper attempts to integrally evaluate through an innovative economic-ecological approach, the direct and indirect benefits of the ecological improvement in water receiving bodies as provoked by compliance of the urban wastewater treatment systems with the targets set by the Water Framework Directive.

complementary way for the attribution of the QRV outcome in monetary units, but also in scales of importance as indicatively presented in Table 3. Both Data Package and Questionnaire respond to governmental bodies, administrative units, authorities, NGOs and experts who desire to evaluate all the potential benefits emerging from the Table 3 QR-V indicative forms Life-support functions Flood control Storm water treatment Ground water recharge Water “cleaning” mechanism Climate control Pollution mitigation Wave buffering Soil generation Nutrient cycling Habitat value Biodiversity Biotic productivity Food chain support Pest control Pollination Carbon sequestration Energy exchange Other (please indicate) Degree of improvement Quite a lot of improvement A lot of improvement Indifferent A little improvement Very little improvement I don’t know (multiple choice for all the life-support functions) Table 3 (continued) 1. Since you have noticed that the annual operation of the (I(selected process/technique) improves the natural environment of your area and hence the surrounding life-support functions are also improved, would you be willing to pay directly as a stakeholder, a certain amount for the preservation the annual operation of the ((selected process/technique)? a. No, I don’t agree with this approach O b. No, not at all O c. I don’t know O d. Depends on the amount asked O e. Yes, I would pay a certain amount O if answer is C,D,E, activation of the following question) All right, and what percentage of your annual income would you be willing to contribute? Up to 0.5% 0.5%–1% 1.5%-2% 2%–2.5% More than 2.5% and do you believe that this amount should be given in general for the preservation of all the life-support functions or specific ones? a. For the preservation of all the recreational activities b. I don’t know c. No, for the preservation of the (multiple selection with the life-support functions) application/installation of one or more processes/ techniques in the receiving waters. It is noted that both the Data Package and Valuation Questionnaire should be responded if an integrated valuation assessment is to be conducted. However, the analysts could apply only the present Data Package in case only the direct benefits should be assessed or the Questionnaire Valuation in case indirect benefits should be revealed. The subjectivity factor is still significant up a considerable extent in both the DP-V and QR-V results. However, the integral assessment of all the direct and indirect benefits derived from the adoption of Water Framework Directive principles in an urban wastewater system, could be approximately assessed through a scientific and coherent valuation process.