Economic valuation of domestic water uses

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 472, Issue , 2014, Pages 712-718

  Justes, Antón ^a   Barberán, Ramón ^a   Farizo, Begoña A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZARAGOZA   (Spain)

^b The Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas   (Spain)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiments; Latent class models; Random parameters; Water domestic use; Water values

Indexed keywords

WATER QUALITY; WATER SUPPLY;

DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; DOMESTIC USE; LATENT CLASS MODEL; RANDOM PARAMETERS; WATER VALUE;

EXPERIMENTS;

CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PRICE DYNAMICS; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; VALUATION; WATER ECONOMICS; WATER QUALITY; WATER USE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FAMILY SIZE; FEMALE; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL MODEL; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY; YOUNG ADULT;

DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; LATENT CLASS MODELS; RANDOM PARAMETERS; WATER DOMESTIC USE; WATER VALUES;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; WATER RESOURCES; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 84890017210     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: 18791026     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.113     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Adamowicz V., Boxall P. Future directions of stated choice methods for environment valuation. Paper presented at the Conference Choice Experiments: A New Approach to Environmental Valuation, London 2001.
2. Al-Kahtani S. Influence of price and non-price factors on the rationalization of domestic water consumption in Saudi Arabia. J Anim Plant Sci 2012, 22:233-238.
3. Álvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N. Improving the process of valuing non-market benefits: combining citizen's juries with choice modeling. Land Econ 2006, 82:465-478.
4. Álvarez-Farizo B., Hanley N., Barberán R., Lázaro A. Choice modelling at the "market stall": individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 2007, 60:743-751.
5. Alvarez-Farizo B., Joyce J., Soliño M. Dealing with heterogeneous preferences using multilevel mixed models. Land Econ 2014, 90:181-198.
6. Arbués F., Villanúa I., Barberán R. Household size and residential water demand: an empirical approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 2010, 54:61-80.
7. Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza Tasa por la prestación de servicios vinculados al ciclo integral del agua. Ordenanza fiscal. Num. 2012, 24-25.
8. Barberán R., Salvador M.J. El uso del agua en los hogares de la ciudad de Zaragoza 2010, Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza.
9. Barberán R., Arbués F., Domínguez F. Consumo y gravamen del agua para usos residenciales en la ciudad de Zaragoza 2006, Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza, Servicio de cultura, Zaragoza.
10. Barraqué B. Is individual metering socially sustainable? The case of multifamily housing in France. Water Altern 2011, 4:223-244.
11. Bastell R.R., Louviere J.J. Experimental choice analysis. Mark Lett 1991, 2:199-214.
12. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Dupont D., Louviere J.J., Morimoto S., et al. Choice set awareness and ordering effects in discrete choice experiments. 16th annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics (EAERE), Gothenburg, Sweden; 25-28 June 2008, [44 pp.].
13. Bennett J., Blamey R. The choice modelling approach to environmental evaluation. New horizons in environmental economics series 2001, Edward Elgar Publishing.
14. Birol E., Das S. Estimating the value of improved wastewater treatment: the case of river Ganga, India. J Environ Manage 2010, 91:2163-2171.
15. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditita wetland in Greece. Ecol Econ 2006, 60:145-156.
16. Birol E., Koundouri P., Kountouris Y. Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water-scarce regions: combining economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis and discounting. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:839-847.
17. Bliem M., Getzner M., Rodiga-Laßnig P. Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. J Environ Manage 2012, 103:65-73.
18. Boxall P., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resour Econ 2002, 23:421-446.
19. Can T., Alp E. Valuation of environmental improvements in a specially protected marine area: a choice experiment approach in Göcek bay, Turkey. Sci Total Environ 2012, 439:291-298.
20. Colombo S., Hanley N. Valoración económica de la conservación del paisaje agrícola: efectos del tratamiento econométrico de la heterogeneidad de las preferencias. Econ Agrar Recur Nat 2008, 8:103-124.
21. Day B., Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Dupont D., Louviere J.J., Morimoto S., et al. Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. J Environ Econ Manag 2012, 63:73-91.
22. Dhar R., Simonson I. The effect of forced choice on choice. J Mark Res 2001, 40:146-160.
23. Eggert H., Olsson B. Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: a choice experiment applied to water quality. Working Papers in Economics 2003, Göteborg University.
24. FAO Review of world water resource by country. Water report, 23 2003, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
25. Fontdecaba S., Grima P., Marco L., Rodero L., Sánchez-Espigares J.A., Solé I., et al. Methodology to model water demand based on the identification of homogenous client segments. Application to the city of Barcelona. Water Resour Manag 2012, 26:499-516.
26. García-Valiñas M.A., Martínez-Espiñeira R., González-Gómez F. Affordability of residential water tariffs: alternative measurement and explanatory factors in southern Spain. J Environ Manage 2010, 91:2696-2706.
27. Green W., Hensher D. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp Res B 2003, 37:681-698.
28. Hanemann W.M. Discrete-Continuous models of consumer demand. Econometrica 1984, 52:541-562.
29. Hanemann W.M., Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV Data. Working Paper No.798, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1996, University of California, Berkeley.
30. 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.
31. Hensher D., Shore N., Train K. Households' willingness to pay for water service attributes. Environ Resour Econ 2005, 32:509-531.
32. Hensher D., Shore N., Train K. Water supply security and willingness to pay to avoid drought restrictions. Econ Rec 2006, 82:56-66.
33. Hurlimann A.C., Mckay J.M. What attributes of recycled water make it fit for residential purposes? The Mawson Lakes experience. Desalination 2006, 187:167-177.
34. Kataria M. Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers. Energy Econ 2009, 31:69-76.
35. Kataria M., Bateman I., Christensen T., Dubgaard A., Hasler B., Hime S., et al. Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments - A non-market valuation study on the European Water Framework Directive. J Environ Manage 2012, 94:25-33.
36. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transp Res Rec 1982, 890:11-17.
37. Louviere J.J., Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Mark Res 1983, 20:350-367.
38. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
39. Magidson J., Vermunt J.K. Latent class analysis. The sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences 2004, 175-198. Chapter 10, Sage Publications, Thousand Oakes. D. Kaplan (Ed.).
40. Marhs D., Mkwara L., Scarpa R. Do respondents' perceptions of the status quo matter in non-market valuation with choice experiments? An application to New Zealand freshwater streams. Sustainability 2011, 3:1593-1615.
41. Martínez-Espiñeira R., Nauges C. Is all domestic water consumption sensitive to price control?. Appl Econ 2004, 36:1697-1703.
42. Matos C., Teixeira C.A., Bento R., Varajão J., Bentes I. An exploratory study on the influence of socio-demographic characteristics on water end uses inside buildings. Sci Total Environ 2014, 466:467-474.
43. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
44. Menegaki A.N., Hanley N., Tsagarakis K.P. The social acceptability and valuation of recycled water in Crete: a study of consumers' and farmers' attitudes. Ecol Econ 2007, 62:7-18.
45. Metcalfe P.J., Baker W., Andrews K., Atkinson G., Bateman I.J., Butler S., et al. An assessment of the nonmarket benefits of the water framework directive for households in England and Wales. Water Resour Res 2012, 48:W03526.
46. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente Grupo de análisis económico del agua. El agua en la economía española: situación y perspectivas 2007.
47. Poulos C., Yang J., Patil S.R., Pattanayak S., Wood S., Goodyear L., et al. Consumer preferences for household water treatment products in Andhra Pradesh, India. Soc Sci Med 2012, 75:738-746.
48. Riegels N., Pulido-Velazquez M., Doulgeris C., Sturm V., Jensen R., Møller F., et al. Systems analysis approach to the design of efficient water pricing policies under the EU water framework directive. J Water Resour Plan Manag 2013, 139:574-582.
49. Rolfe J., Windle J. Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef. Water Resour Res 2011, 47.
50. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Hensher D.A. Preferences for tap water attributes within couples: an exploration of alternative mixed logit parameterizations. Water Resour Res 2012, 48.
51. Shen J., Sakata Y., Hashimoto Y. A comparison between latent class model and mixed logit model for transport mode choice: evidences from two datasets of Japan. Discussion paper 06-05 2006, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, Japan.
52. Smyth R.L., Watzin M.C., Manning R.E. Investigating public preferences for managing Lake Champlain using a choice experiment. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:615-623.
53. Soliño M., Joyce J., Alvarez-Farizo B. Improving water quality in England and Wales: local endowments and willingness to pay. Int J Environ Res 2013, 7:623-632.
54. Street D., Burguess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods 2007, Wiley.
55. Tarfasa S., Brouwer R. Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment. Appl Econ 2013, 45:1099-1108.
56. Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 1927, 34:273-286.
57. Vermunt J.K., Magidson J. Technical guide for latent GOLD 4.0: basic and advanced 2005, Statistical Innovations Inc., Belmont Massachusetts.
58. Wang H., Xie J., Li H. Water pricing with household surveys: a study of acceptability and willingness to pay in Chongqing, China. China Econ Rev 2010, 21:136-149.
59. Whittington D. Municipal water pricing and tariff design: a reform agenda for South Asia. Water Policy 2003, 5:61-76.
60. Whittington D., Lauria D.T., Mu X. A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria. World Dev 1991, 19:179-198.
61. Windle J., Rolfe J., Brouwer R. Public values for improved water security for domestic and environmental use. Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports. Num. 94818 2009, Australian National University.