water

Article
Environmental Benefits and Economical
Sustainability of Urban Wastewater Reuse for
Irrigation—A Cost-Benefit Analysis of an Existing
Reuse Project in Puglia, Italy
Claudio Arena 1, * , Mario Genco 2 and Mario Rosario Mazzola 1
1 Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Università degli Studi di Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy;
[email protected]
2 Qanat Engineering Srl, 90142 Palermo, Italy; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 14 September 2020; Accepted: 15 October 2020; Published: 20 October 2020


Abstract: Besides benefits associated to increased water availability for irrigation, reuse projects
of urban water can also provide positive environmental impacts, as they contribute to improve
water quality of the receiving bodies by diverting wastewater from their outlet. This represents a
typical win-win situation where significant synergies can be achieved between urban and agricultural
sector, and the environment. These favorable conditions, however, do not necessarily imply that
water reuse is either feasible from an economic perspective nor that the underlying supply chain is
going to be triggered, if certain conditions are not met. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is considered
a sound, theoretically well-grounded tool to analyze the financial and economical sustainability of
an investment. The paper presents the CBA of an existing reuse scheme in Puglia, in southern Italy,
reclaiming wastewater for irrigation from a coastal area with growing recreational, beach-related
activities. Supported by operational data, official statistics and sector documents, the CBA reveals
that in almost all scenarios the existence of environmental benefits must be invoked in order to
consider the project economically sustainable. Coherent screening of the different impacts, isolating
the ones that are applicable to the specific case-study, shows that these benefits are mainly non-use
benefits related to the aesthetic enjoyment of clean water in the reclaimed stretch of coastline where
wastewater discharge may no longer take place or take place in a way that significantly reduce
seawater pollution.

Keywords: wastewater reuse; cost-benefit analysis; environmental benefits; recreational benefits;

coastal area

1. Introduction
Water reuse is a growing practice worldwide, especially where scarcity issues concretely limit
the development of economic activities such as agriculture and manufacturing. Beside long-term
improvements of the water supply-demand balance, water reuse also allows avoiding treated
wastewater discharge in water bodies, thus providing an alternative to other investments aimed at
protecting water quality of sea, rivers and lakes.
In the first decade of this century most of the research work in this field has focused on issues such
as the hazards associated to the practice of reuse [1,2] and its social acceptability [3,4]. This body of
work has brought to the definition of standards and assessment of risks of wastewater reuse that have
eventually been used in current national legislation. Much less effort has been spent on the economic
analysis of this type of plants: in fact, compared to ordinary secondary treatment, wastewater reuse

Water 2020, 12, 2926; doi:10.3390/w12102926 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2020, 12, 2926 2 of 23

also entails additional investment and operation costs that must exceed or, at least, be comparable to
the benefits from using reclaimed water.
In defining a general least-cost model for a regional supply system that includes wastewater
reuse as additional source, Spulberg and Sabbaghi [5] observe that first-order equilibrium conditions
imply that marginal cost be the same across the different types of supply sources, including reuse.
They thereby provide grounds for suggesting that water reuse should be developed only where the
marginal cost of conventional resources is itself high, as is common in arid or semiarid areas. In the
same least-cost analysis vein, Hochstrat et al. [6] analyze the financial sustainability of reuse projects
under given scenarios of water pricing by developing least-cost analyses of reuse alternatives.
In a broader context, where environmental impacts are considered in addition to implications for
water supply, the analysis must be broadened as to encompass benefits from the project. Some authors
suggest that wastewater treatment can be seen as a production process that gives rise to both a desirable
output (clean water) and to a series of pollutants (i.e., organic matter, phosphorus, etc.) [7,8], so that
avoiding uncontrolled disposal of these pollutants can produce environmental benefits that can increase
the financial sustainability of water reuse plans [9]. More in general, if viewed from the standpoint of
the environment and not only of water supply, water reuse can produce additional benefits, compared
to those deriving from wastewater treatment, that go beyond the mere increase of water availability
and that can contribute to the economical sustainability of the project.
The idea of benefits implies, however, the existence of a certain demand level for the services that
reuse can provide and some connection with their value. The supply—demand concept is particularly
relevant in the evaluation of reuse projects and makes them an ideal application field of cost—benefit
analysis (hereafter CBA), so that CBA is now recognized as the most suitable appraisal tool of reuse
projects [10,11], although the literature on CBAs of actually planned or specific, existing reuse plants is
rather sparse. Among the few examples, a CBA for centralized wastewater reuse in Beijing [12] a reuse
plant in Italy [13], a reuse scheme in Israel [14] and the examples contained in guidelines [10,11].
A feature of reuse projects is that most benefits are both site and context—specific: if, for instance,
local legislation prescribes low levels of nutrients concentration, the benefits of avoided fertilizer
cost is not likely to occur. On the other hand, costs related to permanent health risks are considered
unacceptable in developed countries so that they do not need to be accounted for in a classic,
deterministic framework. Finally, although environmental benefits are often invoked in the literature
as a component of the overall benefits from reuse, they are seldom quantified.
In studying the potential for water reuse in wide areas, many authors point out the need to integrate
region-wide economic modelling and assessment with the knowledge of the specific technologies,
and of their costs. For instance, in studying the economical sustainability using a large input-output
model, Lopez-Morales and Rodríguez-Tapia [15] observe that the extent to which outputs from
economic models can support the design of a strategy for water sustainability with empirical relevance
depends on accurate representations of treatment technologies and conveyance infrastructure. Overall,
there emerges the need for an in-depth, plant-scale analysis [16] to understand the opportunities
that each different reuse scheme can offer. At a regional scale, the possibility to increase the general
welfare through wastewater reuse seems to stem from the aggregation of individual, well thought-out,
site-specific opportunities that must be carefully gauged under the different aspects of technical
feasibility, financial and economical sustainability, and complexity of the supply chain.
All these are hot issues since the opportunities of concretely developing reuse projects ultimately
relies on the possibility to increase overall social welfare through the plants. If social welfare is actually
increased, then forms of compensations/incentives/subsidies may be devised to support the plants,
otherwise they will be doomed to failure. The paper hence aims at contributing to close this gap and
support the developing practice of CBA of specific reuse projects by providing a CBA of an existing
reuse scheme, located in Puglia, in southern Italy. The plant can be considered paradigmatic of a whole
class of urban wastewater reuse facilities that are planned to be connected to irrigation throughout
the region [17]. The work provides a somewhat novel contribution to the practice of CBA on water
Water 2020, 12, 2926 3 of 23

reuse from at least two standpoints: in the first place, it attempts to analyze and quantify the different
claimed benefits of this type of projects by considering the multi-sectorial spectrum of impacts that
range from agriculture to recreation, including possible implications on municipal water supply. In the
second place, while CBA analysis is typically an ex-ante exercise, as its aim is to direct decision-making
on future investments through a preliminary assessment of costs and benefits, this work is closer to an
ex-post CBA. Ex-post CBAs are used in policy assessment to understand the real costs of the investment
and if the expected benefits have materialized: in this study, starting from an existing reuse plant and
from the observed investment and operational parameters, our evaluation exercise seeks to establish
under which conditions the project is sustainable. This, in turn, will allow understanding the gaps to
be closed for future planning for similar investments. At a more general level, the paper attempts to
establish a methodological path to shape other CBAs on similar schemes, to identify the types and
sources of information needed for the analysis and to reduce uncertainties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cost-Benefit Analysis

CBA is to be regarded as a partial or general equilibrium exercise [18] where the ability of a
project or of a policy to increase general welfare is analyzed with reference to a contra-factual situation
characterized by the existing equilibrium between supply and demand of a certain good or service.
The policy or project shifts the equilibrium by increasing supply or reducing demand and can thus
enhance welfare. Analysis of supply and demand is hence understandably a fundamental step of CBA.
Impacts are all expressed in monetary terms either as costs (negative impacts) or as benefits (positive
impacts). As the impacts of the project are likely to last n years, it is necessary to homogenize the
flow of net benefits (benefits less costs). This is achieved through the discount factor (1 + i)−t . Overall,
results of the analysis can be condensed in two indicators, net present value (NPV) and internal rate of
return (IRR):
n
X Bt − Ct
NPV = t
(1)
t=0 (1 + i )
n
X Bt − Ct
0= (2)
t=0 (1 + i)t
In Equations (1) and (2) the definition of Bt and Ct varies according to the type of analysis
(financial or economic) that is being performed. In financial analysis, Ct are investment, operation and
replacement costs borne to run the project in year t and Bt are revenues directly paid by users in year
t for the goods or services provided by project’s operation. Bt also include the residual value of the
investment at the end of the period of analysis (t = n).
In the economic analysis, the scope is broadened to society as a whole and includes indirect or
external impacts, i.e., effects of the project not directly captured by charges paid by users. In the
economic analysis, all inputs and outputs should be assessed at their shadow price, whence the need
to use conversion factors (CF’s) and shadow wages, whereas external impacts are to be inferred by
eliciting stakeholders’ willingness to pay. Therefore, the economic analysis is developed starting
from the financial one. In addition, in the financial analysis, “i” is the discount rate, reflecting the
opportunity cost of money, while in economic analysis “i” represents the social discount rate (e.g., [19]).
The methodological path indicated by the EU guide to CBA of investments [19] includes
seven steps: (i) Description of the context, (ii) definition of objectives, (iii) project identification,
(iv), technical feasibility (demand analysis and option analysis), (v) Financial analysis, (vi) Economic
analysis, (vii) Risk assessment (sensitivity analysis). In this paper, for concision’s sake and for reasons
that will become apparent further on, we shall focus on points (i), (ii)–(iv) and (vi). Financial analysis
is skipped as it is self-evident that reuse for irrigation is not sustainable financially and risk assessment
has been carried out considering different scenarios focusing on the occurrence of some class of impacts.
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

assessment has been carried out considering different scenarios focusing on the occurrence of some
Water 2020, 12, 2926 4 of 23
class of impacts.

2.2. Materials
2.2. Materials
Certified investment
Certified investment costs costs from project construction,
from project construction, re-evaluated
re-evaluated as
as of
of end of 2019,
end of 2019, were
were used
used
to carry out the analysis, as well as Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs
to carry out the analysis, as well as Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs from operation of thefrom operation of the
reuse scheme in the first years of operation, provided by the utility managing
reuse scheme in the first years of operation, provided by the utility managing the plant. For the the plant. For the
analysis of
analysis of demand,
demand,data datafromfroma anumber
numberofof different
differentsite-specific statistics,
site-specific studies
statistics, andand
studies reports on the
reports on
the sectors affected by the project (agriculture, tourism and municipal water service) were used.
sectors affected by the project (agriculture, tourism and municipal water service) were used.
Assessment of
Assessment of benefits
benefits other
other than
than external
external ones
ones isis based
based onon computations
computations based
based onon models,
models, while
while the
the
analysis of environmental benefits takes advantage of a literature review, although,
analysis of environmental benefits takes advantage of a literature review, although, as will be seen, as will be seen,
in the
in the development
development of of the
the analysis
analysis this
this literature
literature hashas been
been used
used to
to benchmark
benchmark the the level
level of
of external
external
(environmental) benefits
(environmental) benefits that
that would
would make
make thethe project
project economically
economicallysustainable.
sustainable.

3. The
3. The Case
Case Study:
Study: The
The Gallipoli
Gallipoli Wastewater
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Treatment Plant
The case
The case study
study is is illustrated
illustrated inin Figure
Figure 1. 1. The
The Gallipoli
Gallipoli wastewater
wastewater plant (WTTP) is
plant (WTTP) is aa secondary
secondary
treatment plant that treats wastewater of four municipalities (indicated as town
treatment plant that treats wastewater of four municipalities (indicated as town 1, town 2 . . . town 1, town 2…town 4 in
4Figure 1), having
in Figure 1), havingoverall a population
overall a population ranging from
ranging 37,000
from in winter
37,000 in winterto averagely
to averagelyover 70,000
over in
70,000
August. In 2010 the plant was upgraded with a scheme for water reuse,
in August. In 2010 the plant was upgraded with a scheme for water reuse, denoted as “the project” denoted as “the project”
hereafter, consisting
hereafter, consisting of of aa tertiary
tertiary treatment
treatment module
module (TT)
(TT) and
and of of aa facility
facility that
that includes
includes aa pumping
pumping
station (PS)
station (PS) and
andaapipeline.
pipeline.The TheTTTTisisneeded
neededtoto bring
bring water
water to to
thethe quality
quality standards
standards prescribed
prescribed by
by the
the Italian legislation on reuse (Decree 185/2003 of the Ministry of Environment)
Italian legislation on reuse (Decree 185/2003 of the Ministry of Environment) while the PS with the while the PS with
the pipeline
pipeline is necessary
is necessary to convey to water
convey to water to four districts
four irrigation irrigationof adistricts of a nearby
nearby reclamation reclamation
consortium for
consortium for irrigation by farmers. Thus, the TT with the pumping station
irrigation by farmers. Thus, the TT with the pumping station and the treated water transportation and the treated water
transportation
pipeline constitutepipeline constitute theunit
the self-sufficient self-sufficient
of analysis,unit of analysis,
subject to CBA.subject to CBA.

Figure
Figure 1. Schematic of
1. Schematic of the
the study
study area.
area.
Water 2020, 12, 2926 5 of 23

3.1. Description of the Context: The Institutional Framework

The regional administration of Puglia (also termed the Region hereafter) is the body in charge to
plan the investments to implement the European Water Framework Directive 60/2000 (WFD in the
following) in the region. The water planning instrument of the Region is the Water Protection Plan
(Piano di Tutela delle Acque—PTA) that is draft according to national guidelines adopting the WFD.
With a regional act (27/08), the Region has included tertiary wastewater treatment within the
domain of municipal water service (supply, sewerage and wastewater treatment) “where necessary to
achieve the quality objectives of the PTA”. This implies that co-financing of investments, as well as
operation costs of water reuse, are now charged together with municipal water service. There is a single
tariff structure valid for all Apulian municipalities: the tariff is collected by AQP, the regional water
company, as reward for managing municipal water service throughout the region. As a consequence,
the cost of reuse is charged to all customers in the region. Favorable institutional conditions for
water reuse investments are also provided by national legislation on reuse, prescribing that reclaimed
urban wastewater be supplied to final users at no additional cost for them. In order to foster the
implementation of reuse throughout the region, in 2012 the Region has prepared ad hoc technical
specifications requiring that an analysis be performed on the reuse projects included in the master plan
prior to implementation, showing their technical—economic feasibility.

3.2. Description of the Context: Organisation and Characteristics of Water Services in Puglia
Puglia is a water-scarce region with limited surface water. Most of the local water resources
consist of groundwater, as a good portion of the region sits over a karstic aquifer. For this reason,
at the beginning of the twentieth century, a large open-channel aqueduct was built (now called
Canale Principale—the Main Canal), to convey spring water located in the neighboring region of
Campania to all Apulian municipalities. Together with this infrastructure, a national body (Acquedotto
Pugliese, AQP) was created to implement the development of municipal water service in the region.
In more recent years, the main canal has been sided by other water supply schemes, all supplied by
extra-regional, multipurpose surface resources. AQP is now a region-owned joint-stock company that
also provides sanitation services (sewerage and wastewater treatment) to all Apulian municipalities.
As far as irrigation is concerned, service is entitled to six reclamation consortia that are now regional
bodies in charge to operate resources and distribution networks.
Presently, the water balance for municipal use sees most of the water withdrawn from surface
water resources, including springs (~460 Mm3 /year) and 60 Mm3 from wells, 50 Mm3 of which in
Salento, the peninsula forming the heel of the Italian boot, where Gallipoli is located. Water losses in
distribution networks are still around 40%, but have decreased and are bound to decrease further in
the next years, thanks to investments on urban distribution networks. In the Salento area, where the
case study is located, irrigation water comes almost exclusively from groundwater, as networks are not
yet connected to the interregional reservoir schemes.

3.3. Description of the Context: Socio—Economic Information

Gallipoli is a municipality of around 20,000 inhabitants in the province of Lecce. In 2016,
the average household income in Gallipoli was 23,775 € [20]. More socio-economical information for
the area is available only at the more aggregated scale of the Lecce province and of the Region as a whole:
in the province, agriculture covers around 3.5% of the value added, with decreasing perspectives,
while touristic activities make up in the whole region around 13.6% of the value added. These last
figures are certainly magnified in the case of the Gallipoli area, where tourism is likely to make up a
greater part of the municipality’s value added. According to the last census of agriculture [21] farms
have an average area of 2.3 ha, are for the most part (99.3%) run by individuals and their average
standard output (6222 €/farm) is the lowest among the 110 Italian provinces ([21], p. 109).
Water 2020, 12, 2926 6 of 23

North and South of town there are beaches with good economical perspectives, so that there
is now a growing attention towards environmental values and beaches are viewed as important
assets to protect against pollution. The WWTP discharges near the town, in a stretch of coast,
approximately 500 m long, that is partly rocky and where bathing is currently prohibited, due to
the risk of microbiological pollution of the effluent. Gallipoli’s coastal area is a site of community
importance (SCI). The area included in the SCI (92/43/EEC) is however south of the WWTP outflow
and is not affected by it: the monograph on this SCI does not mention sea pollution as one of the
vulnerability factors for this site.

3.4. Identification of the Project: Objectives

The project was set out by Gallipoli’s municipality and its object is to convey reclaimed water
to some irrigation districts operated by the local irrigation consortium. By doing this, the project is
intended to reduce pressure on the aquifer by substituting the groundwater resources presently used
by the consortium for irrigation with reclaimed water.

3.5. Identification of the Project: Technical Description of the Project, Investment Costs and O&M Costs
Currently, the Gallipoli secondary wastewater treatment plant is designed to treat 79,000 PE.
The tertiary treatment consists of clariflocculation, filtration and disinfection by UV-rays. The total
treatment capacity is 500 m3 /h, shared between two modules of 250 m3 /h each. The pumping station
consists of two pumps in parallel plus one reserve, to convey a maximum flow of 0.14 m3 /s of reclaimed
water from a tank downstream the outlet of the plant to the highest delivery point, with an overall
gross head of 47 m, through a 1230 m long, Φ 350 HDPE pipeline.
Information on investment costs is reported in Table 1. Conversion factors have been applied
to account for the shadow prices of inputs (labor, energy, materials) that need to be considered to
determine the economic investment costs when performing the socio-economic cost-benefit analysis of
the project [19].

Table 1. Investment costs of the Gallipoli tertiary treatment plant and estimated Conversion Factors
(CF) for the economic analysis.

Item Cost (2019 €) * Incidence (%) CF Notes on CF Assessment

Feasibility study, design,
520,189 18% 1.00 100% Skilled labor (CF = 1)
project management etc.
10% skilled labor + 90% unskilled
labor. Shadow wage for unskilled
labor = FW (1 − u) (1 − t); FW:
financial wage, u = male
Yard Labour 303,252 11% 0.61
unemployment rate in the Lecce
province (16.0% average 2005–2019);
t = rate of the social security and
relevant taxes (0.32)
EU Guide to cost-benefit analysis of
Materials (Civil works) 689,794 24% 0.82
investment projects, 2008 p. 175
EU Guide to cost-benefit analysis of
Rental + transports 95,623 3% 0.68
investment projects, 2008 p. 176
Electro-mechanical EU Guide to cost-benefit analysis of
1,221,544 43% 0.85
components and equipment investment projects, 2008 p. 177
Total/Average 2,830,403 100% 0.839
* Source: re-evaluated (2019) project costs.

The system is presently devoid of a suitable storage capacity such as a tank to store reclaimed
water during the night, when the consortium provides no irrigation service. The tank can have two
Water 2020, 12, 2926 7 of 23

roles: (i) increase the degree of utilization of reclaimed water for irrigation, (ii) allow permanent
diversion of wastewater discharge into the sea.
Although the built project does not presently include any such tank, for the sake of completeness
we deem useful to include in the CBA a scenario where a tank is in place. Sizing of this tank can be
performed assuming a peak flow equal to plant’s treatment capacity (500 m3 /h), so that tank capacity
necessary to store water for 11 h (from 8 PM to 7 AM) is 5500 m3 . Assuming a square tank 27 × 27 m
and 8 m deep, with waterproofed earth slopes, a cost of 0.83 M€ can be estimated. This figure stems
from an analytical model of costs of the tank [22]. Assuming a 20% of overhead expenses also for this
new infrastructure, total tank cost would rise to 1.00 M€.
Information on O&M costs is contained in Table 2. They have been reconstructed via data from
the first three years of operation (2012–2014) for which AQP has provided an accurate cost breakdown.
As Table 2 shows, water production has rapidly increased over the years, possibly showing increasing
acceptance of reclaimed water by farmers, and costs have decreased. However, present data of delivery
to the irrigation consortium do not yet fully reflect the potential of the plant. To assess it, data from
Table 3 were used to obtain a reference maximum production MP (fourth item from the bottom, Table 3),
of 1.5 Mm3 /year of reclaimed water potentially available for irrigation.

Table 2. O&M costs of the Gallipoli tertiary treatment plant and estimated Conversion Factors (CF) for
the economic analysis.

Incidence
Item 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * CF Notes
(%) **
50% Skilled labour (CF = 1) +
Labour 12,621 17,799 12,154 16% 0.79
50% unskilled labour (CF = 0.57)
EU Guide to cost-benefit analysis,
Reagents (€) 27,441 31,858 14,737 19% 0.80
2008 p. 175
EU Guide to cost-benefit analysis,
Maintenance (€) 14,872 23,038 6879 9% 0.71
2008 p. 175
EU Guide to cost-benefit analysis,
Energy to run the TT (€) 13,894 14,440 21,216 28% 0.96
2008 p. 175
EU Guide to cost-benefit analysis,
Energy to run the PS (€) 4207 8598 21,095 28% 0.96
2008 p. 175
Reclaimed water produced (Mm3 ) 0.09 0.18 0.45
Unit TT cost (€/m3 ) 0.78 0.48 0.12 0.85
Unit variable TT cost (reagents +
0.47 0.25 0.08 0.89
energy) (€/m3 )
Total/Average 73,035 95,733 76,081 100% 0.879
* Operation data from AQP; ** For year 2014.

In 2014 unit operation costs were 0.12 €/m3 . Variable operation costs (consumable reagents plus
energy) in 2014 have converged to 0.08 €/m3 . As far as maintenance costs are concerned, operation
data must be considered carefully: in 2014 they were around 0.3% of the investment costs and the
average 2012–2014 was 14,900 €, approximately the 0.56% of overall project cost. This may not reflect
the average expenditure that will be born during the whole life of the project as the plant is still new.
According to [23], maintenance cost should vary in the range of 0.5 ÷ 1.0% of the investment cost
for civil works and in the range 1.0 ÷ 2.5% of the investment cost for electromechanical equipment.
Considering data in Table 1, this corresponds to upper and lower bounds for maintenance costs of
around 41,600 €/year and 17,700 €/year respectively. For this reason, maintenance costs in the CBA will
be assumed to have the average value of 29,600 €/year. Maintenance costs of the tank are set equal to
5000 €/year (0.5% of the investment cost).
Water 2020, 12, 2926 8 of 23

Table 3. Technical parameters used throughout the analysis.

Parameter Symbol Value Unit Comments/References/Source

Inhabitants I 36,771 http://demo.istat.it/bil2019/index.html
http:
Visitor overnights per year: V 487,573
//www3.provincia.le.it/statistica/economia/tab13.htm
Alezio 2416
Gallipoli 466,349
Sannicola 9642
Tuglie 9166
http://www.agenziapugliapromozione.it/portal/
Magnifying coefficient to allow for
M 5.3 documents/10180/24526/Il%20turismo%20che%
non-accounted visitors
20non%20appare
Average daily per-capita water
WC 200 l/d https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/240016
consumption
Dispersion coefficient DC 0.8
Length of irrigation season L 184 days From 1st May until 31st October
http:
Visitors ratio over the irrigation season VRI 91 %
//www3.provincia.le.it/statistica/economia/tab14.htm
Maximum estimated production of
MP 1,485,078 m3 /year MP = DC × (I × L + VRI/100 × V × M) * WC/1000
reclaimed water for irrigation
Production of reclaimed water for
CP 804,417 m3 /year CP = MP × 13/24
irrigation with the current rules (7/7, 13/24)
Opportunity cost of electrical power CkWh 0.15 €/kWh
Efficiency of the pumping system ŋ 0.60

3.6. Demand Analysis

Given the context outlined above, the consumption levels of four types of goods or services may
be considered to be affected by the project: water for irrigation, water for municipal supply (given the
possible substitution effect of groundwater), better quality for irrigation water and, finally, beach and
recreational services. The project also affects the latter because avoiding discharge into the sea or
enhancing the quality of the water discharged can improve water quality in a stretch of coast that can
become attractive for beach activities and generate aesthetic values.

3.6.1. Demand for Irrigation Water

CREA (the National Council for agriculture research and economics), formerly INEA,
provides information on irrigated agriculture in all Italian regions, and specifically Puglia, through
periodical reports, the last of which dates back to 2010, with data from 2005 and 2006. The INEA report
contains economic performance indices of irrigated land, estimated on a sample of farms in each of the
six Apulian reclamation consortia, and comparison is made with the same indicators for farms that do
not perform irrigation ([24], Table 3, p. 57). Data show quite clearly that in the regional context of
Puglia, the consortium where the plant is located, is the one where irrigation is in the average the least
productive, in terms of gross production and value added.
Another revealing indicator is the ratio between actually irrigated areas and potentially irrigable
areas in the consortium. According to the consortium’s last classification plan (2012), potentially irrigable
areas amount to 10,386 ha while irrigated areas oscillate around 2000 ha, so that no more than 20% of
the areas that are potentially irrigable are actually irrigated. This confirms that, although infrastructure
was built more than thirty-five years ago, public irrigation has not taken off in these districts. One of the
explanations is that drilling technologies have improved over time so that farmers find it easier to drill
their own well (drawing from the same aquifer from where consortium extracts water) than depending
on consortium delivery times and that they probably also find it economically more advantageous.
Overall, the irrigable area in the five districts that can be supplied by reclaimed water is 1647 ha.
Given the above, the actually irrigated land can be estimated as 20% × 1647 = 330 ha. We will assume
that these areas can be supplied only by consortium resources as the aquifer is not easily accessible in
these specific places.
Gross water requirements of the five districts have been extrapolated from information on the
whole consortium, with some uncertainty: according to INEA average requirement is 2260 m3 /ha,
while other sources report higher estimates, with an average requirement of around 2700 m3 /ha
Water 2020, 12, 2926 9 of 23

(see Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials section contains more details on the distribution of crop
types and unit water requirements).
Considering the uncertainty on water requirements of crops, we can estimate that water demand
for these districts may range from 330 × 2260 = 0.75 Mm3 /year to 330 × 2700 = 0.89 Mm3 /year.
Comparing these values with the amount of reclaimed water that the plant is able to supply (1.5 Mm3
in one season), we can conclude that: (1) reclaimed water has certainly a potential to substitute
groundwater in the districts completely; (2) it can allow irrigation of areas that are irrigable with
consortium resources, but are presently supplied by farmer’s wells. This is only possible, however,
if selling prices of consortium water are less than the cost of pumping from private wells or if
benefits from the project exceed costs, so that part of them can be used to incentive farmers to use
reclaimed water. This aspect is important to trigger the reuse mechanism and will be dealt with in the
discussion section.

3.6.2. Demand for Municipal Water

While reused wastewater cannot be used directly for municipal supply, it may be exchanged
with better quality water, thus having an impact also on municipal supply. In this specific case,
exchange would imply that groundwater spared for irrigation could be used for municipal supply.
However, with non-revenue water accounting around 50% still in 2008, AQP has decided to
direct investments toward reducing losses through an extensive program of network metering
and rehabilitation through a two-step plan implying investments for over 160 M€. Of these, 93 M€ have
already been spent in 143 municipalities and the other 57 M€ are being currently spent. This is meant
to decrease withdrawals from supply sources, especially groundwater that is growingly unsuitable for
municipal use due to quality issues. In addition, alternatives are being analyzed to increase municipal
water supply to Salento from surface water in order to reduce the dependence on groundwater
resources and the availability of new extra-regional water resources are further reducing the share
of groundwater in the resources mix used by AQP to supply the region. This short overview on the
current actions of the regional water utility should convince that reuse is not considered strategic for
the water utility and that overall the interactions between water reuse and municipal supply, via a
possible displacement effect of groundwater use, are rather weak.

3.6.3. Demand for Better Quality of Irrigation Water

A much-lamented problem of water resources in Apulia that enjoys wide attention in sector
documents (e.g., PTA; [25]) is the progressive deterioration of water quality in the karst aquifers over
which most of the region is located. It is claimed it can have serious consequences for both water supply
and irrigation, and the decrease of fresh water is seen as a threat for the whole region. As analyzed
above, however, only 10% of water supply for municipal use now comes from groundwater, with a
further decreasing trend, while groundwater continues to be a major, if not the only, supply source
for irrigation in the area. Urban water reuse can hence contribute in three ways to improve the issue
of reduced groundwater quality: (i) indirectly, by substituting groundwater as a supply source and
thereby avoiding extraction, thus increasing the recharge/withdrawal ratio, (ii) directly, by substituting
water for irrigation with less saline water, and (iii) by managed aquifer recharge.
Considering the water volumes at stake in this project, it is unlikely that impacts (i) and (iii) will be
detectable so we concentrate on impact (ii). High salinity is known to have detrimental effects on both
soils and crops: although the importance of this issue is stressed by sector documents, available data
on saline concentration in the Salento aquifer date back to mid-90s [25,26], so that building an updated
picture of the situation is not easy. In addition, the impact of salinity on crop production depends on a
quantity of factors including soils and crop type, irrigation strategies and techniques and, of course, on
saline concentration in groundwater. All these difficulties and uncertainties notwithstanding, we will
endeavor to assess this type of benefits further in the paper.
Water 2020, 12, 2926 10 of 23

3.6.4. Demand for Better Water Quality for Beach Services

The other service that reuse can provide is to reduce or avoid discharge into the sea of wastewater,
thereby allowing using stretches of coastline where bathing would be otherwise forbidden for
recreational purposes. In this case, basic questions to answer are (i) whether there is an actual demand
for these services, and (ii) if the coastal stretch where the wastewater outlet is located is able to
provide them.
Gallipoli is one of the fastest growing summer destinations for beach-related activities in Puglia,
which in turn ranks seventh among the twenty Italian regions by increase in visitor overnights in
the 2010–2019 decade [27]. In 2019, based on data from Puglia Regional Administration, the tourism
density indicator of the municipality of Gallipoli (number of overnights per square kilometer) ranked
second in the 213 Apulian municipalities with a distance of only 2% from the first. In 2018, among the
first ten Apulian municipalities for visitor overnights, Gallipoli rates first in the indicator expressing
accommodation density (number of beds per square kilometer).
In the Gallipoli area, most visitors are interested in beach activities. The municipality of Gallipoli
has 32 km of coastline, 8 km of which are beaches that are presently used for recreational activities.
In 2019, 509,586 visitors overnights have been officially spent in Gallipoli, but a magnifying coefficient of
5.30 must be applied to allow for not accounted overnights revealed by selling data of sold newspapers
and solid waste production [28]. This implies that overnights in 2019 can be estimated in 2,701,000 units
and are concentrated in the summer season, with a peak in August of around the 38% of total annual
visitors, resulting in an average of circa 33,100 visitors/day in August. As around 65% of them visits
the beach during the day [29], Gallipoli beaches can be assumed to receive around 21,500 visitors/day
in August. This figure is relevant because it can provide some information on how close these beaches
are to their carrying capacity [30,31], that is, to the density of beach occupants beyond which visitors
feel no longer comfortable and seek alternative locations.
From satellite images the average depth of Gallipoli’s usable beaches can be estimated in 30 m,
so that the available area for visitors would be 30 × 8000 = 240,000 m2 , corresponding to a peak available
room for occupant of 11.2 m2 /visitor. Assuming instead that all the estimated 33,000 tourists/day visit
the beach, the available room for occupant would decrease to 7.3 m2 per visitor. These figures are
certainly affected by uncertainties related to the actual available extension of the beach and to the
number of visitors, yet they are not far, if not included, in the range of capacity thresholds available in
the literature (ranging from 3.0 to 10.0 m2 per occupant). They point out that there may exist a demand
for additional space for beach activities, so that the availability of further stretches of beach with good
water quality may produce economic benefits, besides those associated to aesthetic values, that must
quantified separately.
From a survey in the area, this stretch of coastline can be schematized as a 35 × 500 m rectangle.
Rather than being a sandy beach as elsewhere in the surroundings, this is a rather rocky stretch of coast.
We consider that a stripe 5 m—wide from the sea-line must be left free of concessions, and further
assume that a stripe of 10 m is left empty between two adjacent concessions. Considering that the
average dimension of a concession in the municipality of Gallipoli is 1700 m2 [32] we obtain that
eight beach concessions may be established in this area. A study of the Italian Revenue Service [33]
provides a statistical sample of beach concessions nationwide, clusters them in ten groups, each with
different characteristics in terms of average area, average length, fraction of sheltered areas, number of
sunbeds and bed-chairs etc. Further, an analysis of the existing concessions in Gallipoli shows that 60%
of these can be assumed to belong to cluster 3 (concessions with bar and restaurant), 20% to cluster
1 (concessions with bar) and 20% to cluster 3 (concessions with beach services only). From the number
of sunbeds and beach-chairs inferable from [33] and assuming an average rate of occupation of 70%,
in line with the hotel room occupation rate, a number of visitors during the peak season (August) can
be estimated: the number of visitors in this stretch of coast would be of around 4000 visitors/km/day.
The figures from the previous section (33,000 beach-visitors/day for 8.0 km of beaches) would yield
a number of 4125 visitors/km/day for this stretch of coast, thereby pointing out that the number of
Water 2020, 12, 2926 11 of 23

visitors estimated through the beach concession data [33] is consistent with the same figure obtained
from visitor overnights data. A summary of the information used in this section, that is also relevant
for the estimation of benefits further in the paper, can be found in the Supplementary Materials section
at Table S2.

3.6.5. Demand Analysis—Concluding Remarks

The above sections have shown that in the reclamation consortium demand for irrigation
water is not growing and that irrigated areas with consortium resources are decreasing with time,
probably because farmers can use water extracted from their own wells. Overall, the percentage of
areas irrigated by consortium resources is quite low, compared to the potentially irrigable area and it
can be assumed that areas irrigated by resources from the consortium are those where farmers have no
other option because in their property access to the aquifer is locally difficult or impossible.
In this context, it can be excluded that the availability of reclaimed water will lead to increase
the extension of irrigated areas, but it will rather substitute groundwater resources for irrigating the
existing districts. However, the displacement effect on groundwater resources, if any, is likely to impact
only the agricultural sector: in the municipal sector, there exist other alternatives to improve the water
balance. AQP is attempting to decrease the share of groundwater by both reducing gross demand to
the supply sources via programs of loss reduction and by increasing the share of surface resources
supplying the region.
Further, data on tourism indicate a potential issue of beach congestion, thereby pointing out the
opportunity to look at further stretches of beach where recreational activities may be carried out.
Finally, sector documents lament increasing saline concentration in groundwater. While for the
municipal sector this will tend to be less worrying in the future thanks to the above-mentioned strategy
of reducing groundwater use, it may provide grounds to farmers to resort to less saline water (the
treated effluent) thereby generating a demand for irrigation water of better quality than the one they
can extract from the aquifer.

3.7. Identifying and Monetizing Benefits

Figure 2 reports a list of the socio-economic effects that may potentially be activated and those
that are actually likely to be generated in this specific situation, according to the outcomes of the above
demand analysis. These effects result in the following socio-economic benefits:

(1) Reduced costs for the irrigation consortium (avoided costs)

(2) Improved water quality for farmers
(3) Avoided discharge into the sea of effluents from secondary treatment, improving bathing water
quality and aesthetic values of the affected area.

3.7.1. Reduced Costs for the Irrigation Consortium

These benefits stem from the fact that (1) the irrigation consortium presently extracts water from
wells averagely 100 m deep, while with the project water will be pumped with a head, gross of
head losses, of 47 m and (2) that the consortium may give up using some well, thereby reducing
maintenance costs.
Unit benefits (€/m3 ) can hence be estimated through:

9.81 × (Hwith − Hwithout )

B1 = CkWh (3)
η × 3600

where CkWh indicates the opportunity cost of energy (Euro/kWh), Hwith (47 m) and Hwithout (100 m)
the head with and without the project and ŋ is the pumping efficiency of the system. The other relevant
parameters to assess Equation (3) are contained in Table 2. With this information, one obtains a saving
of 0.036 €/m3 . Reduced maintenance costs can be estimated indirectly from well data. Well number,
Hoffmann relationship [34] expressing crop yield in saline conditions in percent of production when
water salinity is not constraining production. In principle, in a CBA value added of crop production
should be used; however, as CBA performs incremental analyses, standard outputs can be
legitimately be used instead of value added.
Water Table
2020, 12,42926
reports information on the sensitivity of crops to water salinity, together with 12 ofthe
23
parameters needed to apply Equation (4) for a given salinity of treated wastewater and groundwater.
To highlight the percentage of estimated production gain when reclaimed water is used instead of
well average depth
groundwater, Tableand average
4 also flowthe
contains depth lead to an
production estimate ofwith
percentages savings
the of
two7000 €/year
types in wellfor
of water and a
pump maintenance.
specific salinity difference (0.3 dS/m).

Figure 2. Potential effects generated by the project and affected stakeholders. Dotted lines indicate
potential effects that are not activated, given the specific conditions in terms of supply and demand.

3.7.2. Improved Water Quality for Farmers

To analyze this aspect, we consider the difference in crop production using reclaimed water and
water with its current quality characteristics. A methodological issue arises here, as we are looking
at benefits generated in a “third market”, namely that of the crops produced in the irrigated areas,
a method that is generally not recommended, due to the difficulty of associating project’s impacts to
transactions in that market. We have to follow this path because raising of demand for less saline water
is a potential, not yet in place, impact of the project, so that there is no existing system, say a treatment
plant to reduce salinity, that reclaimed water may substitute at a lower cost. This also implies that
this impact (and the related benefits) is exceedingly uncertain, so that in the discussion appropriate
scenarios shall be considered that do not include this effect.
It should be highlighted that reclaimed water does have itself a non-negligible saline concentration
because of seawater intrusion in sewerage, occurring because Gallipoli is a coastal town, so that
reclaimed water for irrigation is currently being used waiving the limits on chloride concentration.
According to a set of measurements, average conductivity of reclaimed water is in the range 1.4–1.9 dS/m,
Water 2020, 12, 2926 13 of 23

while groundwater extracted from the aquifer has a salinity that can be assumed between 1.7 dS/m and
2.0 dS/m. Benefits from reduced water salinity, Bsalinity , are assessed as follows:

Ncrops
X
Bsalinity = SOi × Ai × bi × ∆CE × Ii /100 (4)
i=1

where SOi is the standard output of the i-th crop-type (€/ha), Ai is the area invested in the i-th crop,
∆CE = CEgroundwater—CEreclaimed, being CE the saline concentration in groundwater/reclaimed
water (in dS/m). Ii = 1 if CE > ai (water salinity exceeds ai , the salinity tolerance threshold of the
i-th crop) and Ii = 0, if CE < ai . bi (% dS/m) is the rate of reduction of production beyond the
salinity threshold. The standard output of an agricultural product is the Eurostat metrics for the
average monetary value of the agricultural output at farm price. Equation (4) is derived from the
Maas-Hoffmann relationship [34] expressing crop yield in saline conditions in percent of production
when water salinity is not constraining production. In principle, in a CBA value added of crop
production should be used; however, as CBA performs incremental analyses, standard outputs can be
legitimately be used instead of value added.
Table 4 reports information on the sensitivity of crops to water salinity, together with the parameters
needed to apply Equation (4) for a given salinity of treated wastewater and groundwater. To highlight
the percentage of estimated production gain when reclaimed water is used instead of groundwater,
Table 4 also contains the production percentages with the two types of water for a specific salinity
difference (0.3 dS/m).

Table 4. Economic and salt tolerance parameters to assess benefits due to reduced saline concentration
in irrigation water. MT, MS and S respectively indicate medium tolerance, medium sensitivity and
sensitivity to salt concentration. Values in the third and second last column are obtained from the
Maas-Hoffman relationship for saline concentrations of 2.0 and 1.7 dS/m respectively. Benefits in the
last column are obtained multiplying the standard output (second column) by the difference between
second last and third last column.

Salt Tolerance Parameters Production Production with Reclaimed

2013 S.O. Benefit
Crop Type with Saline Groundwater (in% of
(€/ha) * Threshold a Slope b (€/ha)
Groundwater Reference Production with
Rating
(dS/m) (%/dS/m) Non-Saline Water)
Tobacco 7064 - - MT 100.0 100.0 0
Sunflower 559 - - MT 100.0 100.0 0
Melon 13,555 0.7 12.7 MS 83.5 87.3 516
Tomato 13,555 1.7 15 MS 95.5 100.0 610
Eggplant 13,555 0.7 10.3 MS 86.6 89.7 419
Pepper 13,555 1 21 MS 79.0 85.3 854
Fennel 13,555 1.1 18 MS 83.8 89.2 732
Cauliflower 13,555 1.2 18 MS 85.6 91.0 732
Lettuce 13,555 0.9 19.5 MS 78.6 84.4 793
Potato 10,622 1.1 18 MS 83.8 89.2 574
Grape 9885 1 14.4 MS 85.6 89.9 427
Orchard 7724 1.1 25 S 77.5 85.0 579
Olive 2300 - - MT 100 100 0
* https://rica.crea.gov.it/produzioni-standard-ps-210.php.

3.7.3. Benefits from Avoided Effluent Discharge into the Sea

Three different types of benefits may in principle apply in this specific situation: (i) avoided costs
of managing the outlet point, (ii) benefits related to the provision of non-consumptive coastal ecosystem
services such as recreational activities and (iii) aesthetic (and, more in general, non-use) services.
Concerning the first type of benefit, no maintenance costs can be assumed to be avoided, as effluent
discharge will continue to take place into the sea off the irrigation season, so that maintenance will
continue to be necessary. As far as the provision of recreational and aesthetic services, we shall provide
separate discussions, based on the available literature and on own considerations.
Water 2020, 12, 2926 14 of 23

3.7.4. Recreational Values of the Area

If the area where effluent discharge presently takes place is no longer affected by it,
recreational (beach) services may be activated. There is in principle an extensive body of literature
available, based on revealed preference methods such as travel costs [35–39] and hedonic prices [40–42].
In addition, two recent important meta-analyses of coastal recreation values are now available both at
global [43] and European scale [44]. Benefit transfer [45] is now developing as a discipline attempting to
take advantage of the thousands of studies available worldwide on environmental services to provide
estimates on environmental values in areas where no studies are available. However, several issues
arise when attempting to transfer values to the specific case and are likely to seriously bias results of
the transfer. In the first place, most of these studies are regional analyses to estimate the environmental
value on large-scale areas such as gulfs or natural parks.
The issue of scale is relevant in these studies as the availability of substitute sites strongly limits
the validity, or even hinders the applicability, of this type of methods (e.g., [46]). Lew and Larson [47]
observed for instance that, while a day on the beach has a value between 28 and 44 USD for the residents
in the San Diego area in California, damage associated to the non-availability of a specific beach is
around 1 ÷ 2 USD/person/day if an alternative site is at hand. In addition, the available studies differ by
methodology, objectives, interest groups involved and socio-economic context. Different methodologies
can lead to include different values in the consumer surplus estimate [48]. Johnston et al. [45] warn
that any type of scaling (by area, income and so on) may lead to significant inconsistencies.
Another issue is the valuation attribute used in a study that may be inappropriate for the area
where results are to be transferred. A number of studies available for improvement of seawater quality
for beach activities, for instance, was produced in the United Kingdom in response to the introduction
of EU bathing Directive [49,50]. In investigating the willingness to pay (WTP) for improved seawater
quality, the authors identify this attribute with a reduction of the risk of experiencing gastroenteritis:
this would be probably considered an inappropriate or even unacceptable trade-off elsewhere.
From this standpoint, the study by Machado and Mourato [51] is more transferable in that,
besides the gastroenteritis metrics, it also uses more neutral attributes for water quality, such as
“good”, “average” and “bad”. Mean WTP for improving water quality from bad to average is
11.0 USD/person/year, and the mean WTP for a further increase of water quality from average to good
is valued 7.94 USD/person/year. In addition, with the exception of [50] and, partly, [49], all these
studies implicitly identify beach visitors with local residents. This is however not the case in Puglia,
where there is a wide prevalence of extra-regional visitors. This issue is not trivial, as the groups of
respondents in environmental assessment studies should ultimately reflect the attitudes of who will be
actually paying for the improved environmental services they receive.
Considering that in Apulia over 85% of visitors come from outside the regional borders, it is
reasonable to assume that extra-regional, seasonal, visitors are the main direct beneficiaries of improved
water quality for beach activities, while residents are the main beneficiaries of aesthetic, non-use values.
In this assumption, an increase in seawater quality should produce an increase of visits to the site [49].
However, given the reduced dimensions of the coastal stretch to be reclaimed and the substitution
effect of the other available beaches, it is very unlikely that its availability for recreational activities will
be able to increase the number of trips to Gallipoli: more likely, it will rather produce a displacement
of visitors and reduce beach congestion. While there exists a certain body of literature devoted to
assessing the role of congestion in valuing environmental goods [52,53] there are very few studies
available on the specific value of reducing beach congestion. McConnell [54] provides a consumer
surplus ranging from 1.42 to 6.43 USD per activity day. However, as shown by the above demand
analysis, the fact that Gallipoli beaches are congested is all but certain and specific studies should be
carried out to isolate this effect.
In these conditions, with no demand increase realistically imaginable and no benefits from reduced
congestions demonstrable, the only estimate of a proxy of the increased value for this stretch of beach
is the fee for beach concessions. It can be assessed from the number of estimated beach concessions
Water 2020, 12, 2926 15 of 23

at 3.6.4 and data available in Table S2 of the Supplementary Materials section, using values from
current Italian legislation, that distinguishes between non-sheltered areas (2.64 €/m2 ) and sheltered
areas (5.87 €/m2 ), thereby obtaining an estimate of 41,232 €/year.

3.7.5. Aesthetical Values of the Area

Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

Few studies are available that focus prevailingly on non-use values of improved seawater quality.
as well as moral and ethical concerns, was found to determine individuals’ commitment to the water
Among these, the studies of Silbermann et al. [55] on New Jersey beaches and Kontogianni et al. [56]
quality improvement scheme.
on Thermaikos bay, near Thessaloniky in Greece.
3.8. Three
Through Scenarios forvaluation
a contingent the Cost-Benefit
(CV) Analysis
study, Silbermann et al. [55] found a una-tantum willngness
to pay of 19 USD/person
Although effects(1985 USD)
generated byfor
the a restoration
project program
are mutually from residents.
independent, Alsodepends
their occurrence through a CV
upon certain conditions
study, Kontogianni et al. [56],in the reuse supply
examined the chain, accordingtotopay
willingness the interaction scheme to
of individuals depicted
ensurein the full
Figure 3. It illustrates the three different scenarios considered for the discussion.
operation of wastewater treatment plants, leading to significant improvements in the water quality of Scenario A assumes
that delivery of reclaimed water to the irrigation consortium is not performed during the night, as
Thermaikos Bay, a gulf several tenths of kilometres long, which is adjacent to Thessaloniki, Greece,
occurs to date, given the absence of storage capacity, so that reclaimed water production for irrigation
with a population
is no higher of around
than CP = 0.80870,000. The average
Mm3/season. amount flowing
All the wastewater pledged outwas €15.23,undergoes
ofWWTP
of the due every four
months as an incremental
tertiary treatment, so increase in water rates
that recreational (~60
benefits may€/year in 2002 as
be activated, Euros). A complex
seawater combination
quality allows
eliminating
of consumer the bathing
and citizen modesprohibition.
of cognition, linked to self-identity and pride in the city as well as
Scenario
moral and ethical B assumeswas
concerns, instead that storage
found capacity isindividuals’
to determine built, implyingcommitment
an additional investment and quality
to the water
maintenance cost, but allowing reclaimed water production for irrigation to grow up to plant’s
improvement scheme. 3
capacity of 1.50 Mm /season. Clearly, also in this case, recreational benefits may be activated. Finally,
scenario C mimics the situation in which only the tertiary treatment plant is built, so that no reuse
3.8. Threeactually
Scenarios for the Cost-Benefit Analysis
takes place, but water is discharged in the sea, at a quality level that makes it to suitable to
remove effects
Although the present bathing prohibition
generated in the are
by the project coastmutually
stretch of 500 m.
independent, their occurrence depends
upon certain conditions in the reuse supply chain, according to the interaction scheme depicted
4. Results
in Figure 3. It illustrates the three different scenarios considered for the discussion. Scenario A
Table 5 summarizes costs for the reuse plant relevant for the analysis, Table 6 reports the
assumes quantification
that delivery of of reclaimed
benefits water
and Table to thethe
7 contains irrigation consortium
corresponding economicisperformance
not performed during the
indicators
night, asNPV
occurs to date, given the absence of storage capacity, so that reclaimed water
and IRR. NPV and IRR have been calculated by (1) and (2) assuming a social discount rate of production
for irrigation
3.5%, is no higher
a planning than of
horizon CP30=years,
0.80 and /season.
Mma3useful Allelectromechanical
life for the wastewaterequipment
flowing out of the
of both TT WWTP
and PS of 15 years. This implies substitution at year 15 and 0 residual value at year 30. At
undergoes tertiary treatment, so that recreational benefits may be activated, as seawater quality allows year 30 also
electrical equipment is assumed to have zero salvage value.
eliminating the bathing prohibition.

Figure 3. Schematic of three scenarios examined. Dotted lines indicate flows that do not occur in the
specific scenario. Water amounts to irrigation (0.75 Mm3 ) are those evaluated at Section 3.6.1.
Water 2020, 12, 2926 16 of 23

Scenario B assumes instead that storage capacity is built, implying an additional investment
and maintenance cost, but allowing reclaimed water production for irrigation to grow up to plant’s
capacity of 1.50 Mm3 /season. Clearly, also in this case, recreational benefits may be activated. Finally,
scenario C mimics the situation in which only the tertiary treatment plant is built, so that no reuse
actually takes place, but water is discharged in the sea, at a quality level that makes it to suitable to
remove the present bathing prohibition in the coast stretch of 500 m.

4. Results
Table 5 summarizes costs for the reuse plant relevant for the analysis, Table 6 reports the
quantification of benefits and Table 7 contains the corresponding economic performance indicators
NPV and IRR. NPV and IRR have been calculated by (1) and (2) assuming a social discount rate of
3.5%, a planning horizon of 30 years, and a useful life for electromechanical equipment of both TT and
PS of 15 years. This implies substitution at year 15 and 0 residual value at year 30. At year 30 also
electrical equipment is assumed to have zero salvage value.

Table 5. Project costs (re-evaluated in 2019 €). All items are adjusted with Conversion Factors.
Replacement costs include electro-mechanic devices in the TT plant in all scenarios and pumps to boost
reclaimed water to irrigation districts in scenarios A and B.

Investment O&M Costs Replacement Costs Residual

Costs
Costs (M€) (M€/year) (15th Year—M€) Value (M€)
Scenario A 2.384 0.140 0.765 0.755
Scenario B 3.385 0.145 0.765 1.332
Scenario C 2.231 0.139 0.650 0.672

For civil works a useful life of 70 years is assumed and a linear depreciation rate, implying a
4/7 residual value of civil works at the end of the 30 years period. Table 6 is based on average water
requirements for crops of 2260 m3 /ha, the lower end of the uncertainty interval described in the
previous sections. This implies that benefits related to crop production will be the highest, a favorable
condition that, as will be seen shortly, does not suffice to make the reuse project sustainable in most
cases merely looking at irrigation benefits.

Table 6. Benefits for the three scenarios A, B and C and for various possible ∆CE’s. ∆CE indicates
the difference in saline concentration between groundwater and reclaimed water. Unit benefits from
improved irrigation are obtained from the values of last column of Table 4 multiplying them by the
invested areas and dividing by water requirements. Only salt-sensitive crops are considered in their
evaluation, so that actual benefits are obtained from the fraction of reclaimed water used to irrigate
salt-sensitive crops (81% of total water).

Unit Benefits from Reclaimed Water Reduced Costs Improved

∆CE Recreational
Scenario Improved Delivered (Mm3 ) for the Quality of
(dS/m) Benefits
Irrigation Water To Present To New Consortium * Irrigation (M€/Year)
(€/m3 ) Users Users (M€/Year) Water (M€/Year)

Scenario A
0.0 0.000 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.000 0.041
0.2 0.135 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.081 0.041
0.4 0.270 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.163 0.041
0.8 0.540 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.325 0.041
1.0 0.675 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.407 0.041
Water 2020, 12, 2926 17 of 23

Table 6. Cont.

Unit Benefits from Reclaimed Water Reduced Costs Improved

∆CE Recreational
Scenario Improved Delivered (Mm3 ) for the Quality of
(dS/m) Benefits
Irrigation Water To Present To New Consortium * Irrigation (M€/Year)
(€/m3 ) Users Users (M€/Year) Water (M€/Year)

Scenario B
pW = 0.1 €/m3
0.0 0.000 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.000 0.041
0.2 0.135 0.75 0.75 0.061 0.165 0.041
0.4 0.270 0.75 0.75 0.061 0.330 0.041
0.8 0.540 0.75 0.75 0.061 0.659 0.041
1.0 0.675 0.75 0.75 0.061 0.825 0.041
pW = 0.3 €/m3
0.0 0.000 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.000 0.041
0.2 0.135 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.081 0.041
0.4 0.270 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.163 0.041
0.8 0.540 0.75 0.75 0.061 0.659 0.041
1.0 0.675 0.75 0.75 0.061 0.825 0.041
pW = 0.6 €/m3
0.0 0.000 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.000 0.041
0.2 0.135 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.081 0.041
0.4 0.270 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.163 0.041
0.8 0.540 0.75 0.00 0.034 0.325 0.041
1.0 0.675 0.75 0.75 0.061 0.825 0.041
Scenario C - - - - - 0.041
* includes estimated 7000 €/year savings for reduced wells maintenance.

Table 7. Cost-Benefit Indicators (NPV and IRR) for the three scenarios described in the Results section
and various. The table also contains the estimated minimum additional benefits necessary to make the
project sustainable (NPV ≥ 0).

Minimum Aesthetic Minimum Aesthetic

∆CE
Scenario NPV (M€) IRR Benefits that Make Benefits that Make NPV
(dS/m)
NPV = 0 (M€/Year) = 0 (% of Total Benefits)
Scenario A
0.0 −3.70 − 0.206 73.0%
0.2 −2.23 −4.3% 0.124 44.0%
0.4 −0.76 1.1% 0.043 15.0%
0.8 2.09 9.5% 0 0
1.0 3.64 13.5% 0 0
Scenario B
pW = 0.1 €/m3
0.0 −4.625 −7.9% 0.257 77.0%
0.2 −1.164 1.0% 0.065 20.0%
0.4 1.809 7.1% 0 -
0.8 7.755 17.7% 0 -
1.0 10.729 22.8% 0 -
pW = 0.3 €/m3
0.0 −4.625 −7.9% 0.257 77.0%
0.2 −3.158 −3.8% 0.176 53.0%
0.4 −1.690 −0.2% 0.094 28.0%
0.8 7.756 17.7% 0 -
1.0 10.729 22.8% 0 -
pW = 0.5 €/m3
0.0 −4.625 −7.9% 0.257 77.0%
0.2 −3.158 −3.8% 0.176 53.0%
0.4 −1.690 −0.2% 0.094 28.0%
0.8 1.245 6.0% 0 -
1.0 10.729 22.8% 0 -
Scenario C −4.145 - 0.230 85%
Water 2020, 12, 2926 18 of 23

5. Discussion
From the demand analysis for irrigation water, since the 330 hectares of land that have no alternative
water resource to those supplied by the consortium have a water demand of 0.75 Mm3 /season, we can
conclude that in scenario A all reclaimed water will be absorbed by these farmers. On the other
hand, in scenario B, the additional available quantity of 1.5 − 0.75 = 0.75 Mm3 /season should be used
by those farmers, denoted as “new users” in Table 6, who currently use their own wells, but may
be interested in shifting to reclaimed water. Let pw be the price charged by the consortium, net of
avoided costs from individual pumping: new users have already potentially access to reclaimed water
as they are connected to the consortium’s distribution network, but they will use reclaimed water
only when pw allows crop production to be remunerative in the appropriate market, leaving all other
inputs unchanged.
This can occur thanks to potential gains related to increased crop production thanks to better
water quality, so that in Table 6 no water is delivered to new users if pw is greater than the unit income
from the increased production (€/m3 ). In this scheme, the trade-off between consortium charges and the
increased income (ceteris paribus a function of the different salinity of reclaimed water and groundwater)
hence becomes a key factor for triggering the reuse mechanism, as shown by the economic indicators
of Table 7.
This also has consequences for households and beach visitors, who have standing to support
the investment, if needed, to generate the recreational and aesthetic benefits they expect. From this
standpoint, it makes a difference whether the goal of removing the bathing prohibition requires
permanent diversion of wastewater discharge from the sea or if tertiary treatment is able to guarantee
the microbial standards required by the bathing directive, as assumed here. In this second assumption
it makes sense considering scenario C, where only a tertiary treatment is implemented, but no reuse.
Then the project should not include the pumping stations and the related costs. Scenario C mimics the
situation where the reuse project collapses into a project for mere aesthetic and recreational purposes.
The results of Table 7 prove in the first place that, if no positive impact can be associated to
improved water quality for irrigation (corresponding to ∆CE = 0), in no case can investment and
operation costs of reuse be sustained by savings of the reclamation consortium and by the increased
value of the beach stretch.
In the case of ∆CE = 0, the willingness to pay of non-farmers to make the project economically
sustainable (NPV = 0) should be at least 206,000 €/year, as in scenario A, accounting for the 73% of the
total benefits required to make the project economically sustainable.
From the discussion on recreational/non-use values, we can conclude that the interest group who
should show a similar willingness to pay is Gallipoli’s citizen. Considering that there are around
8400 households in Gallipoli, this would imply a willingness to pay of around 25 €/household per year.
While it is difficult to compare this value with those from Silbermann et al. and from Kontogianni et al.,
we can affirm that if this extra money were to be paid through water rates by the citizens of Gallipoli,
this would imply an increase of around 8% of the current average water rate per household. The latter
is presently around 300 €/year, as assessed from data of Table 1, and from the rate structure of AQP.
Even if no benefits from improved water quality can be generated, reuse should be preferred to
the option of a mere tertiary treatment with no reuse, as the latter would entail a stronger willingness
to pay of non-farmers (230,000 €/year in scenario C).
Recreational and non-use value decrease their role in making the project economically sustainable
if the, indeed uncertain, benefits from improved water quality could actually be generated (∆CE > 0).
These benefits accrue to “present users” and can also accrue to “new users” if the selling price of
reclaimed water is less than the increased unit revenues farmers can gain from water of better quality.
There are situations in which better quality of irrigation water could make the difference in
supporting the economical feasibility of the project even when reclaimed water is enough only for
present users, as in scenario A. This occurs however when the quality difference between reclaimed
Water 2020, 12, 2926 19 of 23

and groundwater is significant (∆CE ≥ 0.8 dSm−1 ). When also new users find it convenient to use
reclaimed water, in some instances (pw ≤ 0.1 €/m3 ) quality differences can be less marked.
It should be highlighted that the general results of this analysis are corroborated by the present
state of the
Water 2020, 12,project: Figure
x FOR PEER 4 shows a comparison between actual and expected volumes absorbed
REVIEW 19 of by
23
farmers. The figure shows that after a peak in 2014, volumes have gradually decreased. Volumes
actually used by farmers have systematically kept lower than expected.

0.80

0.70
Treated water delivered to
consortium [Mm3/season]

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 4. Comparison of actual (blue) and expected (orange) amounts of treated wastewater delivered
to the irrigation consortium from 2012 to 2019.
Figure 4. Comparison of actual (blue) and expected (orange) amounts of treated wastewater delivered
to
Asthe irrigation
water consortium
quality analysesfrom
do 2012 to 2019.particular criticalities, this supports the idea that the
not show
demand for irrigation water is weak in the districts. On the other hand, although the quality of effluent
All these
wastewater controversial
from the TT would aspects support to
be adequate theallow
idea discharge
that a reuse evenproject for irrigation
in a sensitive should
area, the be
option
ultimately
commonly carriedviewed out when
as safer to demand for reused
protect coastal water is certain
environments is a marineand outfall
at a level adequate
system. to potential
As such, they are
supply; if this condition is not met, other ancillary benefits are not
often supported by municipal administrations regardless of the increased investment and operationallikely to make the project
sustainable.
costs, resulting Non-use
in longbenefits
debatescan andalways be invoked,
difficulties but they must
in implementation be gauged
with by directly
water service asking the
contractors.
appropriate
All these interest groups. Itaspects
controversial is also interesting
support thetoidea observe
thatthat the outcomes
a reuse project forof irrigation
this analysis are also
should be
confirmed on a regional scale: out of around 80 identified feasible potential
ultimately carried out when demand for reused water is certain and at a level adequate to potential reuse sites in the Water
Protection
supply; if this Plan, only five
condition have
is not been
met, operational
other ancillary in the last
benefits arefive
notyears
likelyand mostthe
to make of project
them are working
sustainable.
at lower levels than the expected ones.
Non-use benefits can always be invoked, but they must be gauged by directly asking the appropriate
interest groups. It is also interesting to observe that the outcomes of this analysis are also confirmed on
6. Conclusions
a regional scale: out of around 80 identified feasible potential reuse sites in the Water Protection Plan,
only The
five have
paperbeen has operational
presented ain the last fiveanalysis
cost-benefit years and most
of an of them
existing are working
reuse project inatApulia,
lower levels than
Southern
the expected ones.
Italy. The case study is paradigmatic of a whole class of reuse projects where a multitude of different
effects are generated to a range of different beneficiaries, so that both need to be identified and
6. Conclusions
quantified in order to define a correct evaluation framework. By stressing the role of demand analysis
in thisThetype
paperof assessment,
has presented the paper has shown
a cost-benefit analysisthat these
of an effects
existing canproject
reuse potentially be quite
in Apulia, different
Southern Italy.
from those conventionally invoked for this type of projects, typically increase
The case study is paradigmatic of a whole class of reuse projects where a multitude of different effects of water resources
availability
are generated or to
substitution
a range of of freshwater
different resourcessofor
beneficiaries, thathigher-value
both need to uses such as households,
be identified and
and quantified
hence
in order require
to definecareful understanding
a correct evaluationand investigation.
framework. In addition,
By stressing theof
the role paper
demand has analysis
confirmed in that
this
economic benefits to farmers are able to cover investment and operation
type of assessment, the paper has shown that these effects can potentially be quite different from costs of this type of plants
only
thosein a limited number
conventionally invokedof cases, subject
for this type oftoprojects,
the occurrence
typically ofincrease
rather uncertain conditions,
of water resources and that
availability
other types of benefits,
or substitution such asresources
of freshwater recreational and even non-use
for higher-value uses benefits, need to be considered
such as households, and hencein order
require
to consider the project economically justifiable.
careful understanding and investigation. In addition, the paper has confirmed that economic benefits
In thisare
to farmers specific case
able to study,
cover once it has
investment andbeen made clear
operation coststhat by no
of this means
type farmers
of plants onlywould benefit
in a limited
from an increase of water quantity, benefits to farmers take the somewhat
number of cases, subject to the occurrence of rather uncertain conditions, and that other types elusive (and, as said,
of
extremely uncertain) form of increased crop production thanks to improved water quality. From this
standpoint, the paper has provided a stylized framework for the assessment of this type of benefits
and an as much stylized way to incorporate them into the cost-benefit analysis. To this end, a rather
stiff rule is introduced, attempting to mimic the slow, complex process of farmers actually perceiving
this increase in crop production and decide to switch to reclaimed water, also based on the price that
the supplier charges them.
Water 2020, 12, 2926 20 of 23

benefits, such as recreational and even non-use benefits, need to be considered in order to consider the
project economically justifiable.
In this specific case study, once it has been made clear that by no means farmers would benefit from
an increase of water quantity, benefits to farmers take the somewhat elusive (and, as said, extremely
uncertain) form of increased crop production thanks to improved water quality. From this standpoint,
the paper has provided a stylized framework for the assessment of this type of benefits and an as
much stylized way to incorporate them into the cost-benefit analysis. To this end, a rather stiff rule is
introduced, attempting to mimic the slow, complex process of farmers actually perceiving this increase
in crop production and decide to switch to reclaimed water, also based on the price that the supplier
charges them.
If this type of benefits cannot be generated, most of the positive impacts of the project should be
attributed to generic “environmental benefits” that the project should be able to provide. Through a
coherent demand analysis supported by plans, sector documents and official statistics, the paper has
revealed that no actual recreational benefits can be associated to the project except those deriving from
the mere availability of a further beach stretch. They have been quantified through current fees for
beach concession, so that aesthetic and non-use impacts can be considered the only suitable class of
environmental effects generated by the project. By analyzing the features of the stakeholders and their
involvement, the analysis has also led to support the idea that citizen of Gallipoli, the municipality
where the WWTP outlet point is located, are those benefitting from such non-use services.
The weight of these non-use benefits in making the project economically sustainable (i.e., with a
NPV = 0) can be up to around 75%, corresponding to circa 25 €/household, as savings for the irrigation
consortium only counts for a 10% and benefits deriving from the fee for beach availability for around
15%.
Isolating the relevant environmental impacts among all the likely ones and identifying the affected
stakeholders can be crucial to design effective surveys for assessing willingness to pay through stated
preference methods: the paper has illustrated a methodological path to do so. Such a survey shall
then be in charge to understand whether citizen’s willingness to pay for improving water quality in
the presently prohibited coast stretch is comparable to the value required to make the reuse project
economically sustainable in the quite likely case that benefits related to decreased salinity in irrigation
water do not materialize.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/10/2926/s1,

Table S1: Crop types, distribution, and water requirements in the study area, Table S2: Relevant information to
assess demand for beach services in Gallipoli and the related benefits.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.A. and M.G.; methodology, C.A. and M.G.; validation,
M.R.M.; formal analysis, M.G.; investigation, C.A.; data curation, C.A.; writing—original draft preparation,
C.A.; writing—review and editing, C.A. and M.G.; supervision, M.R.M.; project administration, M.R.M.;
funding acquisition, M.R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This study has been conducted in the framework of the IMPACT project by FORMEZ PA,
the in-house training and research facility for the modernization of public administration of the Italian Government.
The authors gratefully thank Eng. Nicola La Tegola and Eng. Mario Petrosanti from Acquedotto Pugliese S.p.A.
for providing the design and operational data of both the wastewater and the tertiary treatment plant of Gallipoli.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Salgot, M. Water reclamation, recycling and reuse: Implementation issues. Desalination 2008, 218, 190–197.
[CrossRef]
2. Bixio, D.; Thoeye, C.; Wintgens, T.; Ravazzini, A.; Miska, V.; Muston, M.; Chikurel, H.; Aharoni, A.;
Joksimovic, D.; Melin, T. Water reclamation and reuse: Implementation and management issues. Desalination
2008, 218, 13–23. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 2926 21 of 23

3. Garcia-Cuerva, L.; Berglund, E.Z.; Binder, A.R. Public perceptions of water shortages, conservation behaviors,
and support for water reuse in the U.S. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 113, 106–115. [CrossRef]
4. Fielding, K.S.; Dolnicar, S.; Schultz, T. Public acceptance of recycled water. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2018, 35,
551–586. [CrossRef]
5. Spulber, N.; Sabbaghi, A. Economics of Water Resources: From Regulation to Privatization; Springer: New York,
NY, USA, 1998.
6. Hochstrat, R.; Joksimovic, D.; Wintgens, T.; Melin, T.; Savić, D. Economic considerations and decision support
tool for wastewater reuse scheme planning. Water Sci. Technol. 2007, 56, 175–182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Hernandez, F.; Molinos-Senante, M.; Sala-Garrido, R. Economic valuation of environmental benefits from
wastewater treatment processes: An empirical approach for Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 953–957.
[CrossRef]
8. Molinos-Senante, M.; Hernández-Sancho, F.; Sala-Garrido, R. Economic feasibility study for wastewater
treatment: A cost–benefit analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 4396–4402. [CrossRef]
9. Molinos-Senante, M.; Hernandez, F.; Sala-Garrido, R. Cost–benefit analysis of water-reuse projects for
environmental purposes: A case study for Spanish wastewater treatment plants. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92,
3091–3097. [CrossRef]
10. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The Wealth of Waste—The Economics of Water Use in Agriculture;
FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010.
11. University of California, Davis. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis for Water Recycling Projects; Center
for Watershed Sciences, University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 2011.
12. Liang, X.; Van Dijk, M.P. Cost Benefit Analysis of Centralized Wastewater Reuse Systems. J. Benefit-Cost Anal.
2012, 3, 1–30. [CrossRef]
13. Verlicchi, P.; Al Aukidy, M.; Galletti, A.; Zambello, E.; Zanni, G.; Masotti, L. A project of reuse of reclaimed
wastewater in the Po Valley, Italy: Polishing sequence and cost benefit analysis. J. Hydrol. 2012, 127–136.
[CrossRef]
14. Garcia, X.; Pargament, D. Reusing wastewater to cope with water scarcity: Economic, social and environmental
considerations for decision-making. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 101, 154–166. [CrossRef]
15. López-Morales, C.A.; Rodríguez-Tapia, L. On the economic analysis of wastewater treatment and reuse for
designing strategies for water sustainability: Lessons from the Mexico Valley Basin. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2019, 140, 1–12. [CrossRef]
16. Arborea, S.; Giannoccaro, G.; De Gennaro, B.; Iacobellis, V.; Piccinni, A.F. Cost–Benefit Analysis of Wastewater
Reuse in Puglia, Southern Italy. Water 2017, 9, 175. [CrossRef]
17. López, A.; Vurro, M. Planning agricultural wastewater reuse in southern Italy: The case of Apulia Region.
Desalination 2008, 218, 164–169. [CrossRef]
18. Florio, M. Applied Welfare Economics. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Projects and Policies; Routledge: London, UK,
2014.
19. European Commission. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects; European Union: Luxembourg,
2015. [CrossRef]
20. Comuni-Italiani.it. Available online: http://www.comuni-italiani.it/075/031/statistiche/ (accessed on
24 July 2020).
21. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT). Atlante dell’Agricoltura Italiana. 2013. Available online:
https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/115405 (accessed on 15 October 2020).
22. Arena, C.; Genco, M.; Lombardo, A.; Meli, I.; Mazzola, M.R. A Cost–Benefit Based, Parametric Procedure to
Screen Existing Irrigation and Municipal Supply Reservoirs for Wind Energy Storage. Water 2018, 10, 1813.
[CrossRef]
23. Van Haandel, A.C.; Van der Lubbe, J. Handbook of Biological Wastewater Systems: Design and Optimization of
Activated Sludge Systems; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2012.
24. INEA. Aspetti Economici dell’Agricoltura Irrigua in Puglia. 2010. Available online: http://dspace.crea.gov.it/
handle/inea/520 (accessed on 24 July 2020).
25. INEA. Valutazione del Rischio di Salinizzazione dei Suoli e di Intrusione Marina Nelle Aree Costiere
delle Regioni Meridionali in Relazione Agli Usi Irrigui. 2010. Available online: http://rps.entecra.
it/pages/ResearchData/data/progetti/7_ALLEGATO_Azione4_Salinizzazione_leggero01.pdf (accessed on
27 July 2020).
Water 2020, 12, 2926 22 of 23

26. CNR—IRSA. Rapporto Fase 6: Caratterizzazione Quali-Quantitativa dei Pozzi Potenzialmente Utilizzabili
a Scopi Potabili e Sul Loro Possibile Impiego ad Integrazione delle Risorse Convenzionali in Occasione
di Periodi di Carenza Idrica. Available online: https://www.adb.puglia.it/public/news.php?extend.152.6
(accessed on 10 September 2020).
27. Eurostat. Nights Spent at Tourist Accommodation Establishments by NUTS 2 Regions. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tgs00111&plugin=1
(accessed on 27 July 2020).
28. Puglia Promozione and Mercury. Puglia: Il Turismo Che Non Appare. Available online: http://www.
agenziapugliapromozione.it/portal/documents/10180/24526/Il%20turismo%20che%20non%20appare
(accessed on 1 September 2020).
29. Provincia di Lecce, Coldiretti. Indagine Conoscitiva Sulle Motivazioni dei Turisti Presenti Nella Provincia di
Lecce Nel Periodo Estivo. Available online: http://www3.provincia.le.it/statistica/pubblicazioni/Turismo_
estate_2010/Indagine_turismo_estate_2010.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020).
30. Ribeiro, M.F.; Ferreira, J.C.; Silva, C.P. The sustainable carrying capacity as a tool for environmental beach
management. J. Coast. Res. 2011, 64, 1411–1414.
31. Williams, P.; Lemckert, C. Beach carrying capacity: Has it been exceeded on the gold coast? J. Coast. Res.
2007, 50, 21–24.
32. Regione Puglia. Allegato n. 7.1.3 Stato delle concessioni sull’area demaniale. In Piano Regionale delle Coste
della Regione Puglia; Regione Pugalia: Bari, Italy, 2007.
33. Agenzia delle Entrate. Studi di Settore UG60U—Attività 93.29.20 Gestione di Stabilimenti Balneari,
Marittimi, Lacuali e Fluviali. Available online: https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/documents/20143/
435429/WG60U+Stabilimenti+balneari_Cluster+WG60U+-+Stabilimenti+balneari.pdf/8abcd5ea-b462-
19a9-d7a8-3e27d35e30f9 (accessed on 10 September 2020).
34. Maas, E.V.; Hoffman, G.J. Crop salt tolerance—Current assessment. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. ASCE 1977, 103,
115–134.
35. Bell, F.W.; Leeworthy, V.R. Recreational demand by tourists for saltwater beach days. J. Environ. Econ. Manag.
1990, 18, 189–205. [CrossRef]
36. Edwards, S.F.; Gable, F.J. Estimating the value of beach recreation from property values: An exploration with
comparisons to nourishment costs. Ocean. Shore Manag. 1991, 15, 37–55. [CrossRef]
37. King, O.H. Estimating the value of marine resources: A marine recreation case. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 1995,
27, 129–141. [CrossRef]
38. Blackwell, B. The value of a recreational beach visit: An application to Mooloolaba Beach and comparisons
with other outdoor recreation sites. Econ. Anal. Policy 2007, 37, 77–98. [CrossRef]
39. Seguì, L.; Alfranca, O.; Garcia, O. Techno-economical evaluation of water reuse for wetland restoration:
A case study in a natural park in Catalonia, Northeastern Spain. Desalination 2009, 246, 179–189. [CrossRef]
40. Parsons, G.R.; Wu, Y. The Opportunity Cost of Coastal Land-Use Controls: An Empirical Analysis. Land Econ.
1991, 67, 308–316. [CrossRef]
41. Leggett, C.G.; Bockstael, N.E. Evidence on the effects of water quality on residential land prices. J. Environ.
Econ. Manag. 2000, 20, 291–302. [CrossRef]
42. Earnhardt, D. Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods to Value Environmental Amenities at
Residential Locations. Land Econ. 2001, 77, 12–29. [CrossRef]
43. Ghermandi, A.; Nunes, P.A.L.D. A global map of coastal recreation values: Results from a spatially explicit
meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 86, 1–15. [CrossRef]
44. Ghermandi, A. Benefits of coastal recreation in Europe: Identifying trade-offs and priority regions for
sustainable management. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 152, 218–229. [CrossRef]
45. Johnston, R.J.; Rolfe, J.; Rosenberg, R.S.; Brouwer, R. (Eds.) Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource
Values; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015.
46. Soutukorva, A. The Value of Improved Water Quality: A Random Utility Model of Recreation in the Stockholm
Archipelago; Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences:
Stockholm, Sweden, 2001.
47. Lew, D.K.; Larson, D.M. Valuing recreation and amenities at San Diego County beaches. Coast. Manag. 2005,
33, 71–86. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 2926 23 of 23

48. Choe, K.; Whittington, D.; Lauria, T. The Economic Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements in
Developing Countries: A Case Study of Davao, Philippines. Land Econ. 1996, 72, 519–537. [CrossRef]
49. Hanley, N.; Bell, D.; Alvarez-Farizo, B. Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using
contingent and real behaviour. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 24, 273–285. [CrossRef]
50. Mourato, S.; Georgiou, S.; Ozdemiroglu, E.; Newcombe, J.; Howarth, A. Bathing Water Directive Revisions:
What Are the Benefits to England and Wales? A Stated Preference Study; CSERGE Working Paper ECM 03-12;
CSERGE: Norwich, UK, 2003.
51. Machado, F.; Mourato, S. Improving the Assessment of Water Related Health Impacts: Evidence from Coastal Waters
in Portugal; CSERGE Working Paper GEC 99; CSERGE: Norwich, UK, 1999.
52. Cesario, F. Congestion and the valuation of recreation benefits. Land Econ. 1980, 56, 329–338. [CrossRef]
53. Timmins, C.; Murdock, J. A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost
models. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2007, 53, 230–249. [CrossRef]
54. McConnell, K.R. Congestion and willingness to pay: A study of beach use. Land Econ. 1977, 53, 185–195.
[CrossRef]
55. Silberman, J.; Gerlowski, D.A.; Williams, N.A. Estimating Existence Value for Users and Nonusers of
New-Jersey Beaches. Land Econ. 1992, 68, 225–236. [CrossRef]
56. Kontogianni, A.; Langford, I.H.; Papandreou, A.; Skourtos, M.S. Social Preferences for Improving Water
Quality: An Economic Analysis of Benefits from Wastewater Treatment. Water Resour. Manag. 2003, 17,
313–336. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).