Loading…

Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: Why, when and how?

We identify two key stages in the river basin planning process under the Water Framework Directive: the selection of instruments for a programme of measures to achieve the environmental targets, and disproportionate cost analysis to determine whether selected measures involve high costs. Some EU mem...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecological economics 2011-10, Vol.70 (12), p.2268-2274
Main Authors: Wright, Stuart A.L., Fritsch, Oliver
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-48719cfacfb318baaa7165d8be2dd92798cd5ee3bc9d5f1e54f5ea79d6b623d53
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-48719cfacfb318baaa7165d8be2dd92798cd5ee3bc9d5f1e54f5ea79d6b623d53
container_end_page 2274
container_issue 12
container_start_page 2268
container_title Ecological economics
container_volume 70
creator Wright, Stuart A.L.
Fritsch, Oliver
description We identify two key stages in the river basin planning process under the Water Framework Directive: the selection of instruments for a programme of measures to achieve the environmental targets, and disproportionate cost analysis to determine whether selected measures involve high costs. Some EU member states such as Denmark are operationalising these two key stages using cost effectiveness analysis and cost–benefit analysis. However, implementation guidelines encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the Directive. We discuss the potential benefits of actively involving non-state actors, which can be summarised as increasing the effectiveness of policy and improving its implementation. Criticising the emerging economic decision-making approach, we argue that economic analyses could result in a missed opportunity to capitalise on the potential benefits of involvement. The article discusses the appropriateness of actively involving the public during the two aforementioned decision-making stages and suggests concrete ways in which active involvement may be operationalised. We conclude that member states should not implement a minimum form of participation to comply with the statutory requirements of the Directive, but should strive for active involvement due to the potential for increasing the effectiveness of the Water Framework Directive and improving its implementation. ► Economic analysis might fail to capitalise on benefits of participation. ► Suggest citizen juries in WFD cost–benefit analysis. ► Would bring together the advantages of participation and CBA.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.023
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_925720119</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0921800911002989</els_id><sourcerecordid>899153132</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-48719cfacfb318baaa7165d8be2dd92798cd5ee3bc9d5f1e54f5ea79d6b623d53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtPGzEUhS1EpYbHX6i864aZ-jG2x2yg4lUkJDZFLFhYHvsOcTqxU3tIxL_vhNB1Flf3Lr5zdHUOQt8oqSmh8seiBpeGaWLNCKU1UTVh_ADNaKt4JSmRh2hGNKNVS4j-io5KWRBCpNR8hl4eV5DtGFK0QyghvmLrxrAGHOI6DWtYQhynG49zwDdP-NmOkPFttkvYpPwHX4cMH_w5fp6_n-HNHCK20eN52lycoC-9HQqcfu5j9HR78_vqV_XweHd_9fOhco2iY9W0imrXW9d3nLadtVZRKXzbAfNeM6Vb5wUA75z2oqcgml6AVdrLTjLuBT9G33e-q5z-vkEZzTIUB8NgI6S3YjQTapuM3k-SphFcMrqXbLWmglPOJlLuSJdTKRl6s8phafO7ocRsCzIL878gs33DEGWmgibh5U4IUzbrANkUFyA68B-hGp_CPot_if2dgg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>899153132</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: Why, when and how?</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Elsevier</source><source>PAIS Index</source><creator>Wright, Stuart A.L. ; Fritsch, Oliver</creator><creatorcontrib>Wright, Stuart A.L. ; Fritsch, Oliver</creatorcontrib><description>We identify two key stages in the river basin planning process under the Water Framework Directive: the selection of instruments for a programme of measures to achieve the environmental targets, and disproportionate cost analysis to determine whether selected measures involve high costs. Some EU member states such as Denmark are operationalising these two key stages using cost effectiveness analysis and cost–benefit analysis. However, implementation guidelines encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the Directive. We discuss the potential benefits of actively involving non-state actors, which can be summarised as increasing the effectiveness of policy and improving its implementation. Criticising the emerging economic decision-making approach, we argue that economic analyses could result in a missed opportunity to capitalise on the potential benefits of involvement. The article discusses the appropriateness of actively involving the public during the two aforementioned decision-making stages and suggests concrete ways in which active involvement may be operationalised. We conclude that member states should not implement a minimum form of participation to comply with the statutory requirements of the Directive, but should strive for active involvement due to the potential for increasing the effectiveness of the Water Framework Directive and improving its implementation. ► Economic analysis might fail to capitalise on benefits of participation. ► Suggest citizen juries in WFD cost–benefit analysis. ► Would bring together the advantages of participation and CBA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0921-8009</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6106</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.023</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Active involvement ; Benefits ; Citizen participation ; Cost ; cost analysis ; Cost effectiveness ; Cost-benefit analysis ; Cost-effectiveness analysis ; Decision making ; Denmark ; economic analysis ; Economics ; European policy ; European Union ; guidelines ; Planning ; Public participation ; River basins ; Rivers ; Water ; Water Framework Directive ; Water management ; Water resources</subject><ispartof>Ecological economics, 2011-10, Vol.70 (12), p.2268-2274</ispartof><rights>2011 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-48719cfacfb318baaa7165d8be2dd92798cd5ee3bc9d5f1e54f5ea79d6b623d53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-48719cfacfb318baaa7165d8be2dd92798cd5ee3bc9d5f1e54f5ea79d6b623d53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27865,27924,27925,33224</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wright, Stuart A.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritsch, Oliver</creatorcontrib><title>Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: Why, when and how?</title><title>Ecological economics</title><description>We identify two key stages in the river basin planning process under the Water Framework Directive: the selection of instruments for a programme of measures to achieve the environmental targets, and disproportionate cost analysis to determine whether selected measures involve high costs. Some EU member states such as Denmark are operationalising these two key stages using cost effectiveness analysis and cost–benefit analysis. However, implementation guidelines encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the Directive. We discuss the potential benefits of actively involving non-state actors, which can be summarised as increasing the effectiveness of policy and improving its implementation. Criticising the emerging economic decision-making approach, we argue that economic analyses could result in a missed opportunity to capitalise on the potential benefits of involvement. The article discusses the appropriateness of actively involving the public during the two aforementioned decision-making stages and suggests concrete ways in which active involvement may be operationalised. We conclude that member states should not implement a minimum form of participation to comply with the statutory requirements of the Directive, but should strive for active involvement due to the potential for increasing the effectiveness of the Water Framework Directive and improving its implementation. ► Economic analysis might fail to capitalise on benefits of participation. ► Suggest citizen juries in WFD cost–benefit analysis. ► Would bring together the advantages of participation and CBA.</description><subject>Active involvement</subject><subject>Benefits</subject><subject>Citizen participation</subject><subject>Cost</subject><subject>cost analysis</subject><subject>Cost effectiveness</subject><subject>Cost-benefit analysis</subject><subject>Cost-effectiveness analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Denmark</subject><subject>economic analysis</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>European policy</subject><subject>European Union</subject><subject>guidelines</subject><subject>Planning</subject><subject>Public participation</subject><subject>River basins</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Water</subject><subject>Water Framework Directive</subject><subject>Water management</subject><subject>Water resources</subject><issn>0921-8009</issn><issn>1873-6106</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtPGzEUhS1EpYbHX6i864aZ-jG2x2yg4lUkJDZFLFhYHvsOcTqxU3tIxL_vhNB1Flf3Lr5zdHUOQt8oqSmh8seiBpeGaWLNCKU1UTVh_ADNaKt4JSmRh2hGNKNVS4j-io5KWRBCpNR8hl4eV5DtGFK0QyghvmLrxrAGHOI6DWtYQhynG49zwDdP-NmOkPFttkvYpPwHX4cMH_w5fp6_n-HNHCK20eN52lycoC-9HQqcfu5j9HR78_vqV_XweHd_9fOhco2iY9W0imrXW9d3nLadtVZRKXzbAfNeM6Vb5wUA75z2oqcgml6AVdrLTjLuBT9G33e-q5z-vkEZzTIUB8NgI6S3YjQTapuM3k-SphFcMrqXbLWmglPOJlLuSJdTKRl6s8phafO7ocRsCzIL878gs33DEGWmgibh5U4IUzbrANkUFyA68B-hGp_CPot_if2dgg</recordid><startdate>20111015</startdate><enddate>20111015</enddate><creator>Wright, Stuart A.L.</creator><creator>Fritsch, Oliver</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111015</creationdate><title>Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: Why, when and how?</title><author>Wright, Stuart A.L. ; Fritsch, Oliver</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-48719cfacfb318baaa7165d8be2dd92798cd5ee3bc9d5f1e54f5ea79d6b623d53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Active involvement</topic><topic>Benefits</topic><topic>Citizen participation</topic><topic>Cost</topic><topic>cost analysis</topic><topic>Cost effectiveness</topic><topic>Cost-benefit analysis</topic><topic>Cost-effectiveness analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Denmark</topic><topic>economic analysis</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>European policy</topic><topic>European Union</topic><topic>guidelines</topic><topic>Planning</topic><topic>Public participation</topic><topic>River basins</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Water</topic><topic>Water Framework Directive</topic><topic>Water management</topic><topic>Water resources</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wright, Stuart A.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritsch, Oliver</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Ecological economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wright, Stuart A.L.</au><au>Fritsch, Oliver</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: Why, when and how?</atitle><jtitle>Ecological economics</jtitle><date>2011-10-15</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2268</spage><epage>2274</epage><pages>2268-2274</pages><issn>0921-8009</issn><eissn>1873-6106</eissn><abstract>We identify two key stages in the river basin planning process under the Water Framework Directive: the selection of instruments for a programme of measures to achieve the environmental targets, and disproportionate cost analysis to determine whether selected measures involve high costs. Some EU member states such as Denmark are operationalising these two key stages using cost effectiveness analysis and cost–benefit analysis. However, implementation guidelines encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the Directive. We discuss the potential benefits of actively involving non-state actors, which can be summarised as increasing the effectiveness of policy and improving its implementation. Criticising the emerging economic decision-making approach, we argue that economic analyses could result in a missed opportunity to capitalise on the potential benefits of involvement. The article discusses the appropriateness of actively involving the public during the two aforementioned decision-making stages and suggests concrete ways in which active involvement may be operationalised. We conclude that member states should not implement a minimum form of participation to comply with the statutory requirements of the Directive, but should strive for active involvement due to the potential for increasing the effectiveness of the Water Framework Directive and improving its implementation. ► Economic analysis might fail to capitalise on benefits of participation. ► Suggest citizen juries in WFD cost–benefit analysis. ► Would bring together the advantages of participation and CBA.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.023</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0921-8009
ispartof Ecological economics, 2011-10, Vol.70 (12), p.2268-2274
issn 0921-8009
1873-6106
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_925720119
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Elsevier; PAIS Index
subjects Active involvement
Benefits
Citizen participation
Cost
cost analysis
Cost effectiveness
Cost-benefit analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Decision making
Denmark
economic analysis
Economics
European policy
European Union
guidelines
Planning
Public participation
River basins
Rivers
Water
Water Framework Directive
Water management
Water resources
title Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: Why, when and how?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T14%3A29%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Operationalising%20active%20involvement%20in%20the%20EU%20Water%20Framework%20Directive:%20Why,%20when%20and%20how?&rft.jtitle=Ecological%20economics&rft.au=Wright,%20Stuart%20A.L.&rft.date=2011-10-15&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2268&rft.epage=2274&rft.pages=2268-2274&rft.issn=0921-8009&rft.eissn=1873-6106&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.023&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E899153132%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c471t-48719cfacfb318baaa7165d8be2dd92798cd5ee3bc9d5f1e54f5ea79d6b623d53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=899153132&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true