Table 2.

Evaluation of benefits of four groundwater areas in England and Wales (data from Johns & Özdemiroğlu 2007)

Groundwater body (km2)Recharge (Ml d−1)Total estimated value of benefits (million £ sterling, round numbers)Proportion of benefit in relation to total (annual continual values) (%)
LowHighBenefitLow valueHigh value
Hampshire (Winchester) Chalk; area 498 km213641400 (1435)2069 (2291)Abstraction88.8570.70
Wetlands0.060.17
River amenities0.535.49
Aquaculture9.185.75
Heat pumps1.3817.89
Lincolnshire Limestone outcrop; area 58 km21601533 (1580)4052 (4367)Abstraction96.9737.20
Wetlands0.8748.45
River amenities0.642.68
Heat pumps1.5211.67
North Kent (Gravesend and Northfleet) Chalk; area 36 km2977252 (7272)8015 (8138)Abstraction98.6789.83
Wetlands1.146.82
River amenities0.040.51
Heat pumps0.152.84
Nottingham Sherwood Sandstone outcrop; area 41 km21121151 (1155)1635 (2113)Abstraction99.4771.15
River0.494.60
Heat pumps0.0424.25

Total values are a mixture of annual continual values and ‘one-off’ values; values in parentheses exclude ‘one-off’ values. Percentage values of benefits were calculated by the author. The rate of recharge seems to have been taken as roughly the same for all groundwater units (2.69–2.7 Ml d−1 km−2). Abstractions in the Sherwood Sandstone unit exceed recharge.