Case study report Po Italy - VU University, Institute for Environmental ...

AquaMoney
Table 21: Joint distribution: restriction in the future and expected years of restrictions
Restrictions in the future
Years of restriction in the
next 10 years no, definitely not no, probably not don’t know/not sure yes, probably yes, definitely Tot
1 13 13
2 15 15
3 21 3 24
4 14 1 15
5 28 6 34
6 3 2 5
7 2 2
8 1 1
10 6 1 7
do not answer 29 38 67
- 59 59
Tot 29 38 59 100 16 242
4.3 Estimated economic values for water resource management (CVM)
In the Italian version of the questionnaire we also asked the maximum willingness to pay to have the best attributes
level. In Table 22 the willingness to pay for the two attributes are derived as the average given by all respondents. The
value of the willingness to pay is lower than values found in literature. In the previous parts of the questionnaire the
importance about environmental problems results high but when we ask to translate words in money people are
dubious. More than 15% of people are not willing to pay for measures to ensure the best level for the attributes. People
giving wtp show a mean value equal to 36.04 €/year per household for environmental improvement and 34.44 €/year for
external water restriction.
Table 22: Willingness to pay derived from CVM
Environmental
improvement
External household
water restriction
Mean
(€/household)
Median
(€/household)
Sd Frequency wtp =0
36.04 30 39.37 16.20%
34.44 25 44.87 18.30%
Tot 70.19 52.5 79.83 14.90%
4.4 Results of the Choice Experiments (CE) IT1
In this section, we analyse results derived from the Choice Experiment method.
In spite of the fact that the design, following the literature, tried to keep an easy understanding of the pictures and of the
trade-offs involved, in our case many respondents had a not easy understanding of the mechanism of CE. The choice
process was not simple for respondents and this represents one of the reason for the length of the survey. In fact the
large part of time was spent to clarify attributes meanings and example card to interviewees. Difficulties arise because
of the attributes definition and the status quo which is very far from reality.
Before analysing the CE results, we propose in Table 23 the joint distribution between the status quo choices related to
the credibility perception of the all scenarios presented. When people believe in the scenarios then they choose more
frequently the status quo.
12