Assessment of Disproportionate Costs According to the WFD: Comparison of Applications of two Approaches in the Catchment of the Stanovice Reservoir (Czech Republic)
Identifikátory výsledku
Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11240%2F17%3A10374783" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11240/17:10374783 - isvavai.cz</a>
Nalezeny alternativní kódy
RIV/61384399:31150/18:00051787
Výsledek na webu
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1879-z" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1879-z</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1879-z" target="_blank" >10.1007/s11269-017-1879-z</a>
Alternativní jazyky
Jazyk výsledku
angličtina
Název v původním jazyce
Assessment of Disproportionate Costs According to the WFD: Comparison of Applications of two Approaches in the Catchment of the Stanovice Reservoir (Czech Republic)
Popis výsledku v původním jazyce
The EU Water Framework Directive requires all water bodies within EU member states to achieve the "good status" by 2015/2021/2027. As it has proved to be very challenging for many water bodies, demand for cost proportionality analysis has increased dramatically, because disproportionate costs are one of the justifiable reasons for a deadline extension. This has led to development of many approaches across Europe. Among others, the Czech official methodology based on monetary cost-benefit analysis and the German "New Leipzig approach" based on criteria and cost threshold were introduced in 2015. Both approaches estimate costs of achieving the "good status", but differ significantly in evaluating benefits. The Czech methodology identifies various categories of benefits, monetizes them and later compares them with costs of measure implementation. The German methodology determines how proportionate it is to spend on measures based on past public expenditures, objective distance to the "good status" and generated benefits. Both methodologies were tested on a small Stanovice catchment in the Czech Republic with similar results, which allows for a comparison of the two approaches they represent. Achieving the "good status" is viewed as cost-proportionate. Application of both methodologies is associated with numerous problems (e.g., data availability, estimate accuracy), which are further discussed in the paper.
Název v anglickém jazyce
Assessment of Disproportionate Costs According to the WFD: Comparison of Applications of two Approaches in the Catchment of the Stanovice Reservoir (Czech Republic)
Popis výsledku anglicky
The EU Water Framework Directive requires all water bodies within EU member states to achieve the "good status" by 2015/2021/2027. As it has proved to be very challenging for many water bodies, demand for cost proportionality analysis has increased dramatically, because disproportionate costs are one of the justifiable reasons for a deadline extension. This has led to development of many approaches across Europe. Among others, the Czech official methodology based on monetary cost-benefit analysis and the German "New Leipzig approach" based on criteria and cost threshold were introduced in 2015. Both approaches estimate costs of achieving the "good status", but differ significantly in evaluating benefits. The Czech methodology identifies various categories of benefits, monetizes them and later compares them with costs of measure implementation. The German methodology determines how proportionate it is to spend on measures based on past public expenditures, objective distance to the "good status" and generated benefits. Both methodologies were tested on a small Stanovice catchment in the Czech Republic with similar results, which allows for a comparison of the two approaches they represent. Achieving the "good status" is viewed as cost-proportionate. Application of both methodologies is associated with numerous problems (e.g., data availability, estimate accuracy), which are further discussed in the paper.
Klasifikace
Druh
J<sub>imp</sub> - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science
CEP obor
—
OECD FORD obor
10511 - Environmental sciences (social aspects to be 5.7)
Návaznosti výsledku
Projekt
—
Návaznosti
S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach
Ostatní
Rok uplatnění
2017
Kód důvěrnosti údajů
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku
Název periodika
Water Resources Management
ISSN
0920-4741
e-ISSN
—
Svazek periodika
32
Číslo periodika v rámci svazku
4
Stát vydavatele periodika
NL - Nizozemsko
Počet stran výsledku
14
Strana od-do
1453-1466
Kód UT WoS článku
000424266800016
EID výsledku v databázi Scopus
—