Estimating the value of improved wastewater treatment: The case of River Ganga, India

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 91, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 2163-2171

  Birol, Ekin ^a   Das, Sukanya ^b  

^a INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b MADRAS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (India)

Author keywords

Choice experiment method; Conditional logit model; River Ganga; Sewage treatment plant; Water quality; Water quantity

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH RISKS; RIVER POLLUTION; RIVERS; SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; WASTEWATER TREATMENT; WATER TREATMENT PLANTS;

CHOICE EXPERIMENT METHOD; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONDITIONAL LOGIT; CONDITIONAL LOGIT MODEL; EXPERIMENT METHODS; LOGIT MODELS; RIVER GANGA; SEWAGE-TREATMENT PLANTS; STATED PREFERENCES; WATER QUANTITIES;

WATER QUALITY;

RIVER WATER;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; ENVIRONMENTAL TAX; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HEALTH RISK; POLLUTION CONTROL; SEWAGE; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; WASTE FACILITY; WASTE TREATMENT; WASTEWATER; WATER POLLUTION; WATER QUALITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CULTURAL FACTOR; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HEALTH HAZARD; INDIA; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; RELIGION; SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT; WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER POLLUTION;

GANGES RIVER; INDIA; WEST BENGAL;

EID: 77955572154     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.05.008     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abelson P. '. Valuing Water Quality in Wuxi, China,' in Project Appraisal and Valuation of the Environment-general Principles and 6 Case Studies in Developing Countries 1996, Macmillan Press Limited, Great Britain, pp 89-118.
2. Alvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N., Barberán R., Lázaro A. Choice modeling at the "market stall": individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 2007, 60(4):743-751.
3. Barton D.N. The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 2002, 42(1-2):147-164.
4. Barton D.N., Taron A., Alvares B. Using choice experiments to value irrigation water http://kvina.niva.no/striver/Portals/0/documents/STRIVER_TB4.pdf.
5. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann W.M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Ozdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson S. Guidelines for the Use of Stated Preference Techniques for the Valuation of Preferences for Non-market Goods 2003, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
6. Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications 2010, Edward-Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. J.W. Bennett, E. Birol (Eds.).
7. Bienabe E., Hearne R.R. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments. Forest Policy and Economic 2006, 9:335-348.
8. Birol E., Koundouri P., Kountouris Y. Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water scarce regions: the roles of economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis and discounting. Ecological Economics 2009, 69:839-847.
9. Birol E., Hanley N., Koundouri P., Kountouris Y. The optimal management of wetlands: quantifying trade-offs between flood risks, recreation and biodiversity conservation Water Resources Research 2009, 45. W11426. 10.1029/2008WR006955.
10. Birol E., Rayn Villalba E., Smale M. Investigating heterogeneity in farmer preferences for Milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. Environment and Development Economics 2009, 14(4):521-540.
11. Birol E., Koundouri P., Kountouris Y. Evaluating farmers' preferences for wastewater: quantity and quality aspects. International Journal of Water 2008, 4(1):69-86.
12. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 23:421-446.
13. Bureau of Applied Economics & Statistics, Govt.Of West Bengal http://www.indiastat.com/india/state.asp%3Fstid%3D26&secid%3D131 &ptid%3D24&level%3D4.
14. Bush G., Colombo S., Hanley N. Should all choices Count? Using the cut-offs approach to Edit responses in a choice experiment. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 44(3):397-414.
15. Campbell H. W., (2000): "Sludge management-future issues and trends" water, Science and technology. In: Proceedings Sludge management for the 21st Century, IWA, 41(8) p. 1-8.
16. Choe K.-A., Whittington D., Lauria D.T. The Economic Benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Economics 1996, 72(4):519-537.
17. Colombo S., Hanley N., Calatrava-Requena J. Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effects of soil erosion using choice experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 56(1):81-95.
18. Cooper P., Poe G.L., Bateman I.J. The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecological Economics 2004, 50(1-2):69-82.
19. Day B., Mourato S. Valuing River Water Quality in China. -Valuing the Environment in developing countries - case studies 2002, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. I. Pearce.D, C. Pearce, C. Palmer (Eds.).
20. De Groote H., Kimenju S. Comparing consumer preferences for color and nutritional quality in maize: application of a semi-double-bound logistic model on urban consumers in Kenya. Food Policy August 2008, 33(4):362-370.
21. Desvouges W.H., Smith V.K., Fisher A. Option price estimates for water quality improvements: a contingent valuation study for the Monongahela River. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1987, 14(3):248-267.
22. Fernandez L. Estimation of wastewater treatment objectives through maximum entropy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 32(3):293-308.
23. Fischhendler I. Escaping the polluter trap: financing wastewater treatment on the Tijuana-San Diego border. Ecological Economics 2007, 63(2-3):485-498.
24. Fraas A.G., Munley V.G. Municipal wastewater treatment cost. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1984, 11:28-38.
25. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 1997, Prentice Hall. Fourth Edition.
26. Green C.H., Tunstall S.M. The evaluation of river water quality improvements by the contingent valuation method. Applied Economics 1991, 23(7):1135-1146.
27. Ha S.R., Bae M.S. Effects of land use and municipal wastewater treatment changes on stream water quality. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2001, 70(1-2):135-151.
28. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: a application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management 2006, 78:183-193.
29. Hanley N., Colombo S., Tinch D., Black A., Aftab A. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2006, 33(3):391-413.
30. Hanley N., Adamowicz W., Wright R.E. Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test. Resource and Energy Economics 2005, 27(3):227-234.
31. Hasler B., Lundhede T., Martinsen L., Neye S., Schoi J.S. Valuation of Groundwater Protection versus Water Treatment in Denmark by Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation 2005, NERI Technical Report No. 543.
32. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 71(4):1057-1061.
33. Hausman J.A., McFadden D. Specification tests for the Multinomial logit model. Econometrica 1984, 52:1219-1240.
34. Hensher D., Rose J., Greene W. Applied Choice Analysis: a Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press.
35. Hope R.A. Evaluation water policy scenarios against the Priorities of the Rural Poor. World Development 2006, 34(1):167-179.
36. Hu W., Hunnemeyer A., Veeman M., Adamowicz W.L., Srivastava L. Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2004, 31:389-408.
37. Idelovitch E., Ringskog K. Wastewater treatment in Latin America: old and new options 1997, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
38. Kontogianni A., Langford I.H., Papandreou A., Skourtus M.S. Social preferences for improving water quality: an economic analysis of benefits from wastewater treatment. Water Resource Management 2003, 17(5):317-336.
39. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economics 1966, 74:217-231.
40. Louviere J.J., Hensher D., Swait J., Adamowicz W. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
41. Luce D. Individual Choice Behaviour 1959, John Wiley, New York, NY.
42. Maddala G.S. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics 1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
43. Markandya A., Murty M.N. Cost-Benefit analysis of cleaning the Ganges: some emerging environment and development issues. Environment and Development Economics 2004, 9:61-81.
44. McFadden D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
45. Murty M.N., James A.J., Misra S. Economics of Water Pollution: The Indian Experience 2000, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
46. Othman J., Bennett J., Blamey R. Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modelling experience in Malaysia. Environment and Development Economics 2004, 9:803-824.
47. Poe G.L., Severance-Lossin E.K., Welsh M.P. Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76:904-915.
48. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choice of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics 1998, 53:647-657.
49. Rolfe J.R., Windle J. Valuing options for reserve water in the Fitzroy Basin. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2005, 49(1):91-114.
50. Scarpa R., Drucker A., Anderson S., Ferraes-Ehuan N., Gomez V., Risopatron C.R., Rubio-Leonel O. Valuing Animal genetic resources in Peasant economies: the case of the Box Keken Creole Pig in Yucatan. Ecological Economics 2003, 45(3):427-443.
51. Scarpa R., Ruto E.S.K., Kristjanson P., Radeny M., Drucker A.G., Rege J.E.O. Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates. Ecological Economics 2003, 45(3):409-426.
52. Showers K.B. Water Scarcity and urban Africa- an Overview of urban-Rural water linkages. World Development 2002, 30(4):621-648.
53. Train K.E. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 1998, 74:230-239.
54. Wang H. 'Pollution regulation and abatement efforts: evidence from China. Ecological Economics 2002, 41(1):85-94.
55. Willis K.G., Scarpa R., Acutt M. Assessing water company customer preferences and willingness to pay for service improvements: a Stated Choice Analysis. Water Resources Research 2005, 41:1-11.
56. World Fact Book 2007, Central Intelligence Agency. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html %23Econ.