Willingness to pay for safe drinking water: Evidence from Parral, Mexico

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 90, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 3391-3400

  Vásquez, William F ^a   Mozumder, Pallab ^b   Hernández Arce, Jesús ^c   Berrens, Robert P ^d  

^a FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE CHIHUAHUA   (Mexico)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRINKING WATER;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DRINKING WATER; INVESTMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WATER SUPPLY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; COST; FEE; FLUID INTAKE; HOME; HOUSEHOLD; MEXICO; SAFETY; WATER QUALITY; WATER SUPPLY; WATER TREATMENT;

MEXICO [NORTH AMERICA]; NORTH AMERICA;

DATA COLLECTION; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; MEXICO; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 69349086763     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.009     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abdalla C.W., Roach B.A., and Epp D.J. Valuing environmental quality changes using averting expenditures: an application to groundwater contamination. Land Economics 68 (1992) 163-169
2. Abrahams N.A., Hubbell B.J., and Jordan J.L. Joint production and averting expenditure measures of willingness to pay: do water expenditures really measure avoidance costs?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82 (2000) 427-437
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 (1993) 4601-4614
4. Asad M., and Dinar A. The Role of Water Policy in Mexico: Sustainability, Equity, and Economic Growth Considerations (2006), En Breve No. 95, Department of the Latin America and the Caribbean Region, The World Bank, Washington, DC
5. Barkin D., and Klooster D. Water Management Strategies in Urban Mexico: Limitations of the Privatization Debate (2006), Dr. Kiran C. Patel Center for Global Solutions, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
6. Bateman I., Burgess D.W., Hutchinson G., and Matthews D.I. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55 (2008) 127-141
7. Bateman I., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann W.M., Hanley N., and Hett T. Economic Valuation with Stated Preferences: A Manual (2002), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
8. Berrens R., Bohara A., Jenkins-Smith H., Silva C., and Weimer D. Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national Internet samples. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47 (2004) 331-363
9. Berrens R., Jenkins-Smith H., Bohara A., and Silva C. Further investigations of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (2002) 144-168
10. Berrens R., Bohara A., Silva C., Brookshire D., and McKee M. Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. Journal of Environmental Management 58 (2000) 73-90
11. Berrens R., Bohara A., and Kerkvliet J. A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (1997) 252-266
12. Blumenfeld J., and Leal S. The real cost of bottled water. San Francisco Chronicle Sunday (February 18, 2007). www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/18/EDG56N6OA41.DTL
13. Blumenschein K., Blomquist G., Johannesson M., Horn N., and Freeman P. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Economic Journal 118 (2008) 114-137
14. Bockstael N., and McConnell K. The behavioral basis of non-market valuation. In: Herriges J.A., and Kling C.L. (Eds). Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. New Horizons in Environmental Economics (1999), Edward Elgar, North Hampton, MA
15. Boyle K.J. Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ P.A., Boyle K.J., and Brown T.C. (Eds). A Primer on Nonmarket Good Valuation (2003), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands
16. Cameron T.A. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15 (1988) 355-379
17. Caparros A., Oviedo J.R., and Campos P. Would you choose your preferred option? Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (2008) 843-855
18. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., and Lagerkvist C.J. Preference with and without prices: does the price attribute affect the stated preference surveys?. Environmental and Resource Economics 38 (2007) 155-164
19. Carson R.T., and Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (2007) 181-210
20. Carson R.T., and Hanemann W.M. Contingent valuation. In: Mäler K.G., and Vincent J.R. (Eds). Handbook of Environmental Economics vol. 2 (2006) 821-936
21. Carson R.T., and Mitchell R. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 155-173
22. Champ P.A., and Bishop R.C. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics 19 (2001) 383-402
23. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., Brown T.C., and McCollum D.W. Using donation mechanisms to value non-use benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 (1997) 151-163
24. Champ P.A., Boyle K.J., and Brown T.C. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (2003), Kluwer Academic Publishers
25. Ferrier C. Bottled water: understanding a social phenomenon. Ambio 30 (2001) 118-119
26. Freeman A.M. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. second ed. (2003), Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC
27. Gadgil A. Drinking water in developing countries. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 23 (1998) 253-286
28. Gaudin S. Effect of price information on residential water demand. Applied Economics 38 (2006) 383-393
29. Genius M., and Tsagarakis K.P. Water shortages and implied water quality: a contingent valuation study. Water Resources Research 42 (2006) W12407 10.1029/2005WR004833
30. Goodrich J., Adams J., Lykins B., and Clark R. Safe drinking water from small systems. Journal of the American Water Works Association 84 (1992) 49-55
31. Griffin R.C., and Mjelde J.W. Valuing water supply reliability. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82 (2000) 414-426
32. Groothuis P.A., Groothuis J.D., and Whitehead J.C. The willingness to pay to remove billboards and improve scenic amenities. Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 1094-1100
33. Howe C.W., Smith M.G., Bennett L., Brendecke C.M., Flack J., Hamm R.M., Mann R., Rozaklis L., and Wunderlich K. The value of water supply reliability in urban water systems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 (1994) 19-30
34. INEGI. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000 (2000), Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática, Mexico
35. INEGI. II Conteo de Población y Vivienda 2005 (2005), Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática, Mexico
36. Krinsky I., and Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (1986) 715-719
37. Ley de Aguas Nacionales (LAN), 1992. Official Newspaper of the Federation, Mexico City, Mexico.
38. Li H., Jenkins-Smith H., Silva C., Berrens R., and Herron K. Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: investigating household willingness-to-pay for energy research and development. Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 731-742
39. List J., Berrens R., Bohara A., and Kerkvliet J. Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. American Economic Review 94 (2004) 741-752
40. List J., and Gallet C. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 20 (2001) 241-254
41. Little J., and Berrens R. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin 3 (2004) 1-13
42. Murphy J., Allen G., and Stevens T. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (2005) 313-325
43. OECD. Social Issues in the Provision and Pricing of Water Services (2003), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publishing, Paris, France
44. OECD. Water management policy brief for the Mexican project (2006), Policy Note, Environment Directorate, Office of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Mexico
45. Pattanayak S.K., Yang J.C., Whittington D., and Bal Kumar K.C. Coping with unreliable public water supplies: averting expenditures by households in Kathmandu, Nepal. Water Resources Research 41 (2005) W02012 10.1029/2003WR002443
46. Poe G.L., Giraud K.L., and Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (2005) 353-366
47. Rosado M.A., Cunha-e-sá M.A., Ducla-Soares M., and Nunes L.C. Combining averting behavior and contingent valuation data: an application to drinking water treatment in Brazil. Environment and Development Economics 11 (2006) 729-746
48. Soto Montes de Oca G., and Bateman I.J. Scope sensitivity in households' willingness to pay for maintained and improved water supplies in a developing world urban area: investigating the influence of baseline supply quality and income distribution upon stated preferences in Mexico City. Water Resources Research 42 (2006) W07421 10.1029/2005WR003981
49. UNDP. Human Development Report 2006 (2006), United Nations Development Program, New York
50. Villalba L., Colmenero Sujo L., Montero Cabrera M.E., Cano Jiménez A., Renteria Villalobos M., Delgado Mendoza C.J., Jurado Tenorio L.A., Dávila Rangel I., and Herrera Peraza E.F. Radon concentrations in ground and drinking water in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 80 (2005) 139-151
51. Vossler C.A., Ethier R.G., Poe G.L., and Welsh M.P. Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: results from a field validity test. Southern Economic Journal 69 (2003) 886-902
52. Whitehead J.C. Willingness to pay for quality improvements: comparative statics and interpretation of contingent valuation results. Land Economics 71 (1995) 207-215
53. Whittington D. Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries. World Development 26 (1998) 21-30
54. Whittington D. Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental and Resource Economics 22 (2002) 323-367
55. Whittington D., Briscoe J., Mu X., and Barron W. Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the use of contingent valuation surveys in Southern Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural Change 38 (1990) 293-311
56. Whittington D., Lauria D., and Mu X. A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria. World Development 19 (1991) 179-198
57. World Bank. The demand for water in rural areas: determinants and policy implications. The World Bank Research Observer 8 (1993) 47-70
58. Wu P., and Huang C. Actual averting expenditure versus stated willingness to pay. Applied Economics 33 (2001) 277-283