Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 6 July 2011
Received in revised form
11 February 2013
Accepted 1 April 2013
Available online 14 May 2013
The aim of this paper is to quantify the impact of the forest on raw water quality within the framework of
other land uses. On the basis of measurements of quality parameters that were identied as being the
most problematic (i.e., pesticides and nitrates), we modeled how water quality is inuenced by land uses.
In order to assess the benets provided by the forest in terms of improved water quality, we used variations of drinking water prices that were determined by the operating costs of water supply services
(WSS). Given the variability of links between forests and water quality, we chose to cover all of France
using data observed in each administrative department (France is divided into 95 dpartements),
including a description of WSS and information on land uses. We designed a model that describes the
impact of land uses on water quality, as well as the operation of WSS and prices. This bioeconomic model
was estimated by the generalized method of moments (GMM) to account for endogeneity and heteroscedasticity issues. We showed that the forest has a positive effect on raw water quality compared to
other land uses, with an indirect impact on water prices, making them lower for consumers.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Water supply services
Forest
Land use
Water price
Quality
Bioeconomic model
1. Introduction
The purpose of this article is to quantify the impact of the forest
on the quality of water and its economic value. Forests have an
extensive root network and a great ability to generate porous and
ltering soils. Recycling, especially of nitrogen, is important. Under
forest cover, nitrate levels are low (Jussy et al., 2002) and similar
results are also observed for various pollutants (e.g., pesticides).
Our hypothesis is that raw water from catchment areas with a large
portion of forests is of higher quality, thus reducing the need for
treatment of drinking water and, as a result, the associated prices of
drinking water supply. In contrast, runoff from agricultural lands is
the main cause of water pollution (Hascic and Wu, 2006), and
nitrication is greater in an agricultural environment. The presence
of agricultural land in the area surrounding the water supply service (WSS) may thus lead to sophisticated and costly treatments.
While considerable research has been devoted to quantifying the
physical extent of the impact of the forest on water quality, few
studies have attempted to estimate the economic value of the impact
of forests on the quality and still fewer on the value of forests in
* Corresponding author. Laboratoire dEconomie Forestire, 14 rue Girardet,
54000 Nancy, France. Tel.: 33 (0)3 83 39 68 69; fax: 33 (0)3 39 06 45.
E-mail address: serge.garcia@nancy.inra.fr (S. Garcia).
0301-4797/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.002
114
3. Empirical approach
NO
3 in water at a
depth of 1.10 m in mg/l
Forests
Cut elds
Pastures
Temporary grassland
Winter wheat
Rape seed
Spring cereals
Maize as a fodder crop
2
19
31
28
46
62
120
126
115
In order to assess the impact of the forest and other land uses on
the quality of raw water and the price of drinking water P, we rst
assumed that the price applied by the WSS could be explained by
the characteristics of the service (including the delivered drinking
water volume VOL or the length of water supply network LENG),
grouped together in the vector X, and that it reects the average
cost of water supply. The quality of raw water, which is made
drinkable (if necessary) through the use of adapted water purication facilities, was also assumed to have a direct effect on P, but
was considered to be a function of land use at the same time.
A variation of the quality of raw water may increase the cost of
treatment and increase P as a result. The price of water is thus
indirectly affected by different land uses since they constitute an
essential factor underlying the quality of raw water. Variables
relating to land use are represented by the vector Z. Two quality
indicators (pesticides and nitrates), referred to as q1 and q2, are
used, and the quality equations are respectively written as:
(1)
Y GR
(2)
where i is the department index and 1i and 2i are error terms that
account for non-observed shocks on quality indicators.
It has often been demonstrated that the management regime of
the WSS has a considerable impact on the price they propose, but
there is also a problem of endogeneity associated with this variable.
The choice of management regime can itself be accounted for by
certain observable characteristics of the service as well as by many
non-observable factors (Boyer and Garcia, 2008; Carpentier et al.,
2006). In particular, the difference in price, which is unfavorable
for delegated management, can be explained by the more difcult
operating conditions (including low quality raw water), precisely
the reason why French communes (municipalities) have chosen
this management regime. In order to take this factor into account in
our model, we used the variable DEL, which represents the proportion of the population supplied by one unit of distribution (UDI)
when management is delegated. Hence, the relationship between
water price and management regime can be modeled by the
following two equations:
Pi b0 bX Xi bZ Zi b1 q1 b2 q2 bD DEL Pi
(3)
DELi d0 dX Xi dZ Zi d1 q1 d2 q2 D
i
(4)
where Pi and D
i are stochastic disturbances to the ith departments
water price and mode of management.
Finally, the simultaneous equation system consists of equations
that dene the quality level of the raw water, the price equation,
and an equation related to the management regime used by the
WSS. Assumptions concerning the various error terms in the
equation system are dened in the next section.
3.2. The estimation method
The equations in the model were estimated simultaneously in
order to account for any possible correlations between errors
in each equation associated with common non-observable factors.
In order to take the interdependence of the system and the
presence of endogenous variables into account, either a full-
(5)
EW 0
(6)
116
and K is the total number of parameters to be estimated, the criterion follows a c2 distribution with L K degrees of freedom under
the null hypothesis for validity of the moment conditions. This is
known as the Hansen specication test with L K overidentifying
constraints for which it is not necessary to identify the parameters
but that transmit information about the model specication. In
particular, if the instruments contain variables that are not exogenous, the Hansen test will detect them and the whole set will then
have to be modied.
4. Data
The decision to use the department as the scale of reference to
analyze the data has both advantages and limitations. The main
limitation lies in the administrative nature of the way the departments are divided up. Using the natural boundaries of the
catchment areas would be better adapted to our analysis of the
impacts of land use on water quality. However, analysis on a scale
more accurate than that of the department would have posed a
dual problem linked with the availability of data at this scale and
the homogeneity of data at the national level. The departmental
scale enabled us to assemble a rich and homogeneous set of data
(76 variables), well adapted to the analysis of variations in water
quality and price across the entire country, with just two exceptions. We decided not to use the data for Paris. The origins of the
water resources used in this area were too different and remote.
We also excluded Corsica from the study because some data were
unavailable. The variables that were used are described in Table 2
and the descriptive statistics are shown in Table 3.
4.1. Dependent variables
To establish the price of drinking water, we used data from the Eau
2004 survey carried out by IFEN and SCEES. This survey-based study
covered the calendar year 2004 and was carried out in 5183 communes in France. The sample was stratied by department and
commune size. Survey rates ranged from exhaustive sampling for
communes of over 10,000 inhabitants to 1/20 for communes with
fewer than 400 people, which were much more numerous.
Table 3
Descriptive statistics of variables (at the department level).
Variable
Unit
Mean
Standard
deviation
Min
Max
P
DEL
q1
q2
VOL
LENG
DENS
WATER
UG
POPMAX
FOREST
GRASS
CULTURE
VIARMA
MOUNT
PIG
BOVINE
POP_UDI
WW_DEL
V/m3
1.42
0.61
34.74
16.32
58.66
9.23
0.33
35.91
71.82
130.21
27.84
22.75
29.32
2.84
22.50
0.01
0.18
8.10
0.47
0.24
0.24
30.03
9.95
41.42
4.46
1.20
13.66
29.39
34.90
13.12
14.42
18.28
4.15
32.65
0.02
0.16
28.03
0.23
1.06
0.01
0
1.90
9.44
1.21
0.01
12.93
5.40
100.71
3.63
0.02
0.02
0.02
0
0
0.0004
0.11
0
2.17
1
100
45.90
230.39
18.87
8.64
74.36
100
273.27
68.42
61.25
69.73
22.10
100
0.14
0.72
204.77
0.93
%
mg/l
1000 m3
1000 km
1000 inhab./km2
cm
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
pigs/ha
Bovines/ha
1000 inhab.
The sample covered 14% of the communes and 68% of the population,
and thus ensured a good level of representativity for the regions and
the departments (Coutellier, 2007). The price of water used in our
study corresponded to the fraction of the household water bill that
covered drinking water (excluding the part covering sanitation).
In France, the average water consumption of a representative
household is around 120 m3 per year. Hence, the average price per m3
was based on a typical bill with a consumption of 120 m3 per user
and per year. Concerning the data from the Eau 2004 survey, we always used data that were weighted according to the stratied sampling, which were therefore representative at the department level.
We decided to interpret quality data measured on raw water
from drinking water catchment areas, although these were fewer in
number than quality data on distributed water. Working on analyses of raw water meant that we avoided a major bias associated
with drinking water treatments that could mask the inuence of
land use on water quality. We chose to concentrate on a four-year
Table 2
Denition of variables (unit of observation department).
Group
Variable
Denition
Year(s)
Source
Y
e
e
P
DEL
q1
2004
2007
2002 to 2005
IFEN SCEESa
Ministry of Healthb
Ministry of Healthb
e
X
e
e
e
e
Z
e
e
e
e
q2
VOL
LENG
DENS
WATER
UG
FOREST
GRASS
CULTURE
VIARMA
MOUNT
BOVINE
PIG
POP_UDI
POPMAX
WW_DEL
2002 to 2005
2004
2004
2005
1961 to 1990
2007
2004
2004
2004
2004
2007
2004
2004
2007
2005
2004
Ministry of Healthb
IFEN SCEESa
IFEN SCEESa
INSEE
LERFoBc
Ministry of Healthb
SCEESd
SCEESd
SCEESd
SCEESd
MAPe
SCEESd
SCEESd
Ministry of Healthb
Ministry of tourism
IFEN SCEESa
e
Instr
e
a
b
c
d
e
period (2002e2005) for quality data to avoid the bias of a year with
its particular climatic conditions that would affect water quality.
Moreover, this period allowed us to obtain data on small WSS since
they are not monitored every year (especially for pesticides). The
data was obtained from quality monitoring carried out by the
DDASS (French Departmental Health and Social Action Directorate,
now known as the ARS or Regional Health Agency). These data were
aggregated into the Sise-Eaux database (French Ministry of Health,
2008). This national database was used to manage health monitoring in 30,000 water catchment samples intended for human
consumption. Sise-Eaux is thus the most complete database available on drinking water quality. We selected two quality criteria
linked to pesticides and nitrates.
For pesticides, we analyzed the proportion of the raw water ow
requiring treatment to make it drinkable. More precisely, the water
catchments selected were those for which at least one reading on
the raw water had exceeded the pesticide norms set for water
distributed during the period under consideration. A Law of 11
January 2007 sets the limitations and quality references for raw
water and water intended for human consumption: no more than
0.1 mg/l per substance and no more than 0.5 mg/l for total substances. Despite the fact that Sise-Eaux is the most complete
database available on drinking water, the pesticide data had to be
interpreted with caution since less than 60% of the resources were
monitored. Nevertheless, it represents more than 80% of the ow.
Concerning nitrates, we analyzed the nitrate concentrations of
the corresponding raw water ow. This criterion is more accurate
than the former one that we used, which was the proportion of raw
water ow corresponding to the resources that exceeded 50 mg/l
(the drinkability limit for distributed water). Other studies on
drinking water have attempted to integrate qualitative questions
(Bontemps and Nauges, 2009). However, the variables used were
constructed from proxies based on the quality classes for raw surface
water, which dened the type of drinking water treatment to be
used (Council Directive 75/440/CEE of 16 June 1975). We clearly
specied that the nitrate data are not exhaustive although they cover
more than 80% of the resources and nearly 90% of the ow produced.
We analyzed the management regime in the drinking water services according to the proportion of the population supplied by a unit
of distribution, UDI, with delegated management, from the Sise-Eaux
database. A UDI is a continuous unit of distribution pipes in which
water quality is assumed to be homogeneous, managed by a single
operator and belonging to a single contracting authority (commune
or group of communes). A distribution unit cannot straddle several
departments. Maintaining the list of distribution units is the responsibility of the DDASS in each department. Since this database
does not store historical data related to the organization of water
departments, we analyzed data from 2007. This information is still
relevant since the management regime in drinking water services
was relatively stable at the department level over a three-year period.
On the other hand, working with the Sise-Eaux database made it
possible to work with exhaustive data, thus avoiding the bias associated with sampling. We assumed that the UDI that were not run by
delegated management were state-controlled.
4.2. Constraints of the water services and other variables
Data concerning the volume supplied for distribution (VOL) was
taken from the Eau 2004-IFEN SCEES survey, which provides a good
indication of production by the WSS. The length of the drinking
water network (LENG) was also taken from the Eau 2004e IFEN
SCEES survey. The length of the network provides an indication of
the size of the drinking water service. By combining this with information about the population, we obtain an idea of the density of
the network. Since the length of network per user involves variable
117
118
Table 4
Estimation results for the bioeconomic model (water price, delegated management and quality equations) e GMM estimation.
Variable
DEL
q1
q2
Constant
DENS
LENG
UG
WATER
WW_DEL
FOREST
GRASS
CULTURE
VIARMA
BOVINE
DEL
q1
q2
Adjusted R2
Test of over-identifying
restrictions (p-value)
Heteroscedasticity tests (p-value)
Whites test
BreuschePagan
17.0461 (2.5213)***
0.0689 (0.0183)***
0.1094 (0.0415)***
0.1794 (0.0456)***
0.2850 (0.0592)***
0.2013 (0.0425)***
0.2172 (0.1038)***
27.5769 (6.6924)***
0.4362
c2 (28) 23.93 (0.6852)
0.6098
0.7064
11.27 (0.6651)
2.28 (0.3199)
44.83 (0.0012)
18.97 (0.0001)
41.62 (0.2048)
1.90 (0.3867)
17.56 (0.2275)
9.34 (0.0094)
under delegated management and each of the two quality indicators (pesticides and nitrates). Several exogeneity hypotheses
had to be made in order to construct the conditions of orthogonality for the GMM criterion. Our system ultimately included 24
parameters for estimation with 52 ( 4 13) instruments
(including unity). We checked the validity of the orthogonality
conditions with the statistics of the Hansen test, which is equal to
23.93 with 28 ( 5224) degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis
(of validity) could not be rejected with a p-value of 0.6852. The
model therefore seems to be well specied. We also implemented
heteroscedasticity tests (such as those of White and Breusche
Pagan). Even if not always corroborating, these tests show forms of
heteroscedasticity of errors.
To begin with, we can observe that the model developed is very
well tted to our set of data. In particular, the adjusted R2 for the
price equation is quite high, with a value of 0.52, meaning that more
than 50 percent of the variation in price can be explained by the
explanatory variables. Moreover, the other equations (delegation,
pesticides and nitrates) also present a very satisfactory adjustment
with the adjusted R2 equal to 0.44, 0.61 and 0.71, respectively.
We can then study the factors of the quality indicators q1 and q2
(pesticides and nitrates, respectively), which are themselves
assumed to be price determinants. Land uses have a signicant effect
on q1 and q2. More precisely, when the forest cover in a department
(FOREST) increases, non-respect of the quality thresholds of pesticides and average content of nitrates decrease (with estimates
of 0.58 and 0.18, respectively). This means that an increase of one
point of the proportion of forest area in the department decreases
of 0.58 point the proportion of water resources having exceeded
the pesticides standards, and of 0.18 mg/l the content of nitrates.
Similarly but to a lesser extent, a land cover of permanent
grassland guarantees a better quality of raw water with coefcient
values of 0.36 and 0.29, respectively, for pesticides and nitrates.
Moreover, the positive values (0.24 for pesticides and 0.20 for nitrates) for the coefcient associated with the variable CULTURE
shows that a greater proportion of area cultivated with cereals, oilseeds and protein crops led to an increase in the amount of pesticides
and nitrates in the raw water. We can also observe that the presence
of vines, arboriculture or market gardening considerably increases
pesticide levels (coefcient value of about 1.14), while decreasing the
average nitrates content. In Hascic and Wu (2006), the coefcients of
urban land, cultivated cropland and pastureland are all signicantly
positive with respect to forest land, indicating that converting forests to developed land, cultivated cropland, or pastureland increases
conventional water pollution (via processes of eutrophication and
dissolved oxygen depletion). Moreover, as expected, the number of
bovine (Nitrogen per Livestock Unit/ha) was a highly determinant
factor for the presence of nitrates in the raw water, with a signicantly positive coefcient value for the BOVINE variable. It can
be noticed that the variable PIG appeared to have no signicant
effect and had been removed from the regression, probably due to
the low number of departments involved in this specic breeding.
Finally, it should be mentioned that a larger proportion of underground raw water corresponds to waters that are less laden with
pesticides but signicantly more (even if low) with nitrates. Indeed,
this is the phenomenon of leaching which is the source of nitrate
pollution of water. Leaching of a mineral is its transfer deep into the
ground, under the action of percolating. Nitrates can also be found
in surface waters during their supply by the deeper water sources.
However, there is automatically more problem of nitrates in
groundwater than in surface water. Furthermore, transfer of pesticides to the water is mostly supercial. Pesticides are found in
surface waters mainly due to dissolving in runoff.
Concerning the proportion of delegation to private companies for
water services, represented by the variable DEL, we observe that the
119
1
We report estimation results of the initial model shown in Eqs (3) and (4) in
Table A1 in Appendix. This model includes more variables but not signicant, and
with a worse goodness of t.
120
department, they found that the direct value of one hectare of forest
planted in the place of one hectare of agricultural land was valued at
V63. Nez et al. (2006) calculated the economic value of the input
(stream water) associated with the reduction in the market value of
the output (drinking water). They did not model the relationship
between quality and land uses, but instead used a formula on the
inverse relationship between the percentage of native forest cover
and stream ow, and found gures varying between $61.20 and
$162.40 (USD). One reason for these high values is that they measure a value of the ecosystem service that includes several services
and not just the forest service for raw water quality. Biao et al.
(2010) also found a very high economic benet per hectare of water conservation ($688). As specied by the authors, the term of
water conservation includes three main services: rainfall interception, soil water storage and fresh water provision.
6. Conclusion
Pi g0 gX Xi gZ Zi uPi
(7)
DELi q0 qX Xi qZ Zi uD
i
(8)
DEL
Constant
DENS
LENG
UG
WW_DEL
FOREST
GRASS
VIARMA
Adjusted R2
BreushePagan test of
1.3181 (0.0860)***
45.9441 (10.029)***
7.4218 (1.7672)***
0.5578 (0.4670)
0.1047 (0.0756)
0.3669 (0.0887)***
0.0043 (0.0007)***
0.0034 (0.0017)**
0.0011 (0.0013)
0.0080 (0.0051)
1.3892 (0.5158)***
0.2750
0.2672
independence c2 (1) 16.498, p-value 0.0000
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. ***: signicant at 1%; **: at 5%; *: at 10%.
Number of observations 93.
Our aim in this article was to clearly identify and quantify the
impacts of the forest on water quality at the national level in France
by evaluating the presence of potential benets to be derived from
the forest. Our results conrm the positive inuence of the forest on
raw water quality. We have also shown the benets that the forest
cover can bring to the economy of drinking water services, with a
potential drop in water prices. This value, inherent to woodlands in
comparison to other land uses, justies and strengthens the merits
of woodlands and forestry activities in the areas concerned.
These results will make it possible to initiate discussions on
public policies at the national level that could focus either on landuse choices or on incentives that could potentially be used by forest owners who provide services. Real issues are at stake today in
countries where pressures on forest resources can be high in terms
of deforestation or species conservation, or in terms of bioenergy,
climate change and carbon storage. Very strong incentives exist in
these cases to develop payment systems for environmental forest
services, avoiding or minimizing deforestation, for example. In
developed countries, in addition to nancial savings for water services and consumers, a major issue is now emerging concerning
forest owners who claim payment for their good management as
well as their contribution to water quality. However, such an action
may be deeply challenged if links between forests and water quality,
for example, are not clearly demonstrated due to a lack of data or
because of the presence of conifers that may create additional nitrate
losses. This important issue concerns the support and involvement
of stakeholders in the forest environment in terms of the implementation of a management system that takes water resources into
account. The question of payment and incentives for forest owners
clearly arises. For example, payment schemes for water supply (in
quality and/or in quantity) could be developed if a clear link can be
demonstrated between forest land use and management and water
supply both at the hydrological and economic levels.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Galle Chateau from the French Ministry
of Health, Henri Davezac from the ARS Midi-Pyrnes, Vincent
Perez from LERFoB, Jacques Plaisir from the French Ministry of
Agriculture, and Annie Coutellier and Martine Wichmann from
IFEN, for their invaluable contribution to data collection and
transmission. Our thanks also to Olivier Picard for supervising the
joint study involving INRA and IDF Fort et Eau, and to Andr
Granier, Sophie Nicola, Julien Tournebize and Jean-Pierre Butault
for their comments on an earlier version of the article. This work
was carried out with nancial support from the French Ministry of
Agriculture.
121
Appendix
Table A1Estimation results for the bioeconomic model (water price, delegated management and quality equations) e Estimation by GMM e Initial model shown in Eqs. (3) and
(4)
Variable
DEL
q1
q2
Constant
VOL
DENS
LENG
UG
WATER
WW_DEL
FOREST
GRASS
CULTURE
VIARMA
MOUNT
BOVINE
PIG
DEL
q1
q2
Adjusted R2
Test of over-identifying restrictions (p-value)
Heteroscedasticity tests (p-value)
Whites test
BreuschePagan
1.4795 (0.0944)***
0.0011 (0.0007)
0.0145 (0.0126)
0.0499 (0.1042)
97.2075 (3.4440)***
15.3326 (2.1909)***
0.4892 (0.1634)***
0.0676 (0.2730)
0.0350 (0.0361)
0.0237 (0.0974)
0.8729 (0.2519)***
0.7087 (0.6634)
0.0450 (0.1751)
1.0070 (0.7254)
0.3071 (0.1295)**
124.704 (78.3664)
483.931 (507.0)
0.1906 (0.0631)***
0.2901 (0.1419)**
0.2594 (0.0529)***
0.1089 (0.2012)
0.0067 (0.0339)
28.5158 (15.9699)*
103.723 (124.3)
0.0058 (0.0012)***
0.0888 (0.0153)***
0.0133 (0.0048)***
0.0019 (0.0013)
0.0056 (0.0010)***
0.6433 (0.1424)***
0.0024 (0.0020)
0.0065 (0.0030)**
0.4414
c2(28) 19.01 (0.3912)
0.0041 (0.0021)*
0.0026 (0.0030)
0.4040
0.4696
0.6335
59.79 (0.0003)
10.83 (0.0044)
25.72 (0.5343)
2.62 (0.2695)
81.50 (0.0092)
18.84 (0.0001)
73.63 (0.0391)
0.59 (0.7462)
References
Abildtrup, J., Strange, N., 2000. The option value of non-contaminated forest watersheds. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 115e125.
Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S., Stenger, A., 2013. The Effect of Forest Land Use on the Cost of
Drinking Water Supply: a Spatial Econometric Analysis. Ecological Economics,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.004.
Adhikari, R.N., Rao, M.S.R.M., Selvi, V., Math, S.K.N., Husenappa, V., Chandrappa, M.,
Reddy, K.K., 2002. Studies on runoff coefcient of rational formula. Indian
Journal of Soil Conservation 30 (1), 106e108.
Agreste, 2004. Rpartition physique du territoire de 1992 2004. (Teruti Lucas).
Benot, M., Papy, F., 1997. Pratiques agricoles sur le territoire et qualit de leau
alimentant un captage. In: Leau dans lespace rural. INRA, pp. 323e338.
Benot, M., Fizaine, G., Bernard, P.-Y., 2002. Qualit nitrique des eaux en bassins
forestiers dalimentation: fonctionnement stable et effets post-tempte 26/12/
1999. In: Combe, J., Rosselli, W. (Eds.), Leau qui sort des bois e quand fort
durable rime avec eau potable. Actes de la Journe thmatique de lAntenne
romande du WSL, pp. 29e36. Lausanne.
Biao, Z., Wenhua, L., Gaodi, W., Yu, X., 2010. Water conservation of forest ecosystem
in Beijing and its value. Ecological Economics 69 (7), 1416e1426.
Bontemps, C., Nauges, C., 2009. Carafe ou bouteille? Le rle de la qualit de lenvironnement dans la dcision du consommateur. Economie et Prvision 2009/2
(188), 61e79.
Boyer, M., Garcia, S., 2008. Rgulation et mode de gestion: une tude conomtrique sur les prix et la performance dans le secteur de leau potable. Annales
dconomie et de statistique 90, 35e74.
Broadmeadow, S., Nisbet, T.R., 2004. The effects of riparian forest management on
the freshwater environment: a literature review of best management practice.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 8 (3), 286e305.
Brown, T.C., Binkley, D., 1994. Effect of Management on Water Quality in North
American Forests. USDA Forest Service, p. 26.
Carpentier, A., Nauges, C., Reynaud, A., Thomas, A., 2006. Effets de la Dlgation sur
le Prix de lEau Potable en France: Une Analyse partir de la Littrature sur les
effets de traitement. conomie et Prvision 174 (3), 1e19.
Coutellier, A., 2007. Les services publics de leau en 2004, p. 30. Eau potable Dossier
n 7, Ifen.
Ernst, C., Gullick, R., Nixon, K., 2004. Protecting the source e conserving forests to
protect water. American Water Works Association 30 (5), 3e7.
French Ministry of Health, 2008. Leau potable en France, 2005e2006. (Report.
Paris).
Gove, N.E., Edwards, R.T., Loveday, L., 2001. Conquest effects of scale on land use and
water quality relationships: a longitudinal basin-wide perspective. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association 37, 1721e1734.
Gundersen, P., 2007. The impact of forest management on water quality. In: Raulund-Rasmussen, K., Hansen, K. (Eds.), Synthesis Report on Impact of Forest
Management on Environmental Services EFORWOOD Report, pp. 73e91.
Hascic, I., Wu, J.J., 2006. Land use and watershed health in the United States. Land
Economics 82 (2), 214e239.
INSEE e Direction du Tourisme, 2005. Le tourisme en France, p. 122. Insee
Rfrences.
Johnson, N., White, A., Perrot-Maitre, D., 2000. Developing Markets for Water Services from Forests: Issues and Lessons for Innovators. Forest Trends, World
Resource Institute, The Katoomba group, p. 19.
Jussy, J.H., Koerner, W., Dambrine, E., Dupouey, J.-L., Benot, M., 2002. Inuence of
former agricultural land use on net nitrate production in forest soils. European
Journal of Soil Science 53, 367e374.
Kiersch, B., Tognetti, S.S., 2002. Land-water linkages in rural watersheds: results
from the FAO electronic workshop. Land Use and Water Resources Research 2,
1.1e1.6.
Knoke, T., Ammer, C., Stimm, B., Mosand, R., 2008. Admixing broadleaved a review
on yield, ecological stability and economics. European Journal of Forest
Resource 127, 89e101.
Langpap, C., Hascic, I., Wu, J.J., 2008. Protecting watershed ecosystems through
targeted local land use policies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90
(3), 684e700.
Nuez, D., Nahuelhual, L., Oyarzun, C., 2006. Forest and water: the value of native
temperate forests in supplying water for human consumption. Ecological Economics 58 (3), 606e616.
Ranger, J., Colin-Belgrand, M., Nys, C., 1995. Le cycle biogochimique des lments
majeurs dans les cosystmes forestiers. Importance dans le fonctionnement
des sols. Etude et Gestion des Sols 2 (2), 119e134.
Ranger, J., Loyer, S., Gelhaye, D., Pollier, B., Bonnaud, P., 2007. Effects of the clearcutting of a Douglas-r plantation (Pseudotsuga menziesii F.) on the chemical
composition of soil solutions and on the leaching of DOC and ions in drainage
waters. Annals of Forest Science 64 (2), 183e200.
Rebeix, G., 2001. Eau potable: diversit des services. grand cart des prix, p. 4. Les
donnes de lenvironnement e Eau, n 65, Ifen.
Sikka, A.K., Selvi, V., 2005. Experimental examination of rational runoff coefcient
for small agricultural and forest watersheds in the Nilgiris. IE Journal 86, 24e
27.
Terrier, C., 2006. Mobilit touristique et population prsente e Les bases de lconomie prsentielle des dpartements. Edition Direction du Tourisme, p. 128.
Turc, L., 1961. Evaluation des besoins en eau dirrigation, vapotranspiration
potentielle. Annales Agronomiques 12 (1), 13e49.
Willis, K., 2002. Benets and Costs of Forests to Water Supply and Water Quality.
Report to the Forestry Commission. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, p. 24.