Household's willingness to pay for arsenic safe drinking water in Bangladesh

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 143, Issue , 2014, Pages 151-161

  Khan, Nasreen Islam ^a,b   Brouwer, Roy ^c   Yang, Hong ^a  

^a SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF AQUATIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Arsenic; Bangladesh; Contingent valuation; Drinking water; Health risks; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

HEALTH RISKS; POTABLE WATER; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; WATER SUPPLY;

BANGLADESH; CHOICE VALUE; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DISCRETE CHOICE; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; RISK ZONES; ROBUST ESTIMATE; SAFE DRINKING WATER; VALUE ELICITATIONS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARSENIC;

ARSENIC ACID; DRINKING WATER; GROUND WATER; ARSENIC; WATER POLLUTANT;

ARSENIC; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DRINKING WATER; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HEALTH RISK; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; INCENTIVE; WATER POLLUTION; WATER SUPPLY; WATER USE; WELL WATER; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; BANGLADESH; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST; COST OF ILLNESS; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; FEMALE; FLUID INTAKE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH HAZARD; HOME SAFETY; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INCOME; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; RISK REDUCTION; RURAL AREA; THEORETICAL MODEL; WATER CONTAMINATION; WATER QUALITY; WATER SUPPLY; ANALYSIS; ARSENIC POISONING; DRINKING; ECONOMICS; FAMILY SIZE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PUBLIC OPINION; STATISTICAL MODEL; WATER POLLUTANT; WATER POLLUTION;

BANGLADESH;

ADULT; ARSENIC; ARSENIC POISONING; BANGLADESH; DATA COLLECTION; DRINKING; DRINKING WATER; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCOME; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PUBLIC OPINION; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL; WATER POLLUTION; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 84901762168     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.04.018     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Aadland D., Caplan A.J. Incentive incompatibility and starting point bias in iterative valuation questions: comment. Land Econ. 2004, 80(2):312-315.
2. Ahmad J., et al. Value of arsenic-free drinking water to rural households in Bangladesh. J.Environ. Manag. 2005, 74:173-185.
3. Ahmad J., et al. Rural communities' preferences for arsenic mitigation options in Bangladesh. J.Water Health 2006, 4:463-478.
4. Ahsan H., et al. Arsenic exposure from drinking water and risk of premalignant skin lesions in Bangladesh: baseline results from the health effects of arsenic longitudinal study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2006, 163:1138-1148.
5. Akter S. Determinants of willingness to pay for safe drinking water: a case study in Bangladesh. Asian J. Water Environ. Pollut. 2008, 5:85-91.
6. Alberini A. Efficiency vs bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: bivariate and interval-data models. J.Environ. Econ. Manag. 1995, 29:169-180.
7. Alberini A., Krupnick A. Cost-of-illness and willingness to pay estimates of the benefits of improved air quality: evidence from Taiwan. Land Econ. 2000, 76:37-53.
8. Argos M., et al. Aprospective study of arsenic exposure from drinking water and incidence of skin lesions in Bangladesh. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 174:185-194.
9. Arrow K., et al. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58(10):4601-4614. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
10. Bateman I.J., Burgess D., Hutchinson W.G., Matthews D.I. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J. Environ. Econ. Manage 2008, 55:127-141.
11. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Georgiou S., Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ. 2006, 60(2):450-460.
12. Bateman I.J., et al. A'natural experiment' approach to contingent valuation of private and public UV health risk reduction strategies in low and high risk countries. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 31:47-72.
13. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B.H., Hanemann W.M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Özdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual 2002, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
14. Bateman I.J., et al. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 12:161-179.
15. Bates M.N., et al. Case-control study of bladder cancer and exposure to arsenic in Argentina. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004, 159:381-389.
16. Brouwer R., et al. Economic valuation of flood risk exposure and reduction in a severely flood prone developing country. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2009, 14:397-417.
17. Cameron T.A., Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a 'dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire. J.Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 27:218-234.
18. Carson R.T., Grooves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 37:181-210.
19. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method 1989, 82. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
20. Chen Y., et al. Arsenic exposure from drinking water and mortality from cardiovascular disease in Bangladesh: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2011, 342.
21. Cho Y., Easter K.W., Konishi Y. Economic evaluation of the new US arsenic standard for drinking water: a disaggregate approach. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46:W10527.
22. Chowdhury S., Meenakshi J.V., Tomlins K.I., Owori C. Are consumers in developing countries willing to pay more for micronutrient-dense biofortified foods? Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 93(1):83-97.
23. Corso P.S., Hammitt J.K., Graham J.D. Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J.Risk Uncertain. 2001, 23(2):165-184.
24. Cropper M.L., Haile M., Lampietti J., et al. The demand for a malaria vaccine: evidence from Ethiopia. J.Dev. Econ. 2004, 75:303-318.
25. Dekker T., et al. The effect of risk context on the value of a statistical life: a Bayesian meta-model. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 49:597-624.
26. DoE Environmental Quality Standards for Bangladesh 1994, Government of the Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh. Environment, D.o. (Ed.).
27. Genius M., et al. Evaluating consumers' willingness to pay for improved potable water quality and quantity. Water Resour. Manag. 2008, 22:1825-1834.
28. Green D., Jacowitz K.E., Kahneman D., McFadden D. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resour. Energy Econ. 1998, 20:85-116.
29. Guh S., Xingbao C., Poulos C., Qi Z., Jianwen C., von Siedlein L., Jichao C., Wang X., Nyamete A., Clemens J., Whittington D. Comparison of cost-of-illness with willingness-to-pay estimates to avoid shigellosis: evidence from China. Health Policy Plan. 2008, 23:125-136.
30. Haab T.C., McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation 2002, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
31. Haab T.C., McConnell K.E. Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. J.Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 32:251-270.
32. Hanemann W.M., Kannienen B. The Statistical Analysis of Discrete-Response CV Data 1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
33. Hoque B.A., Hoque M.M., Ahmed T., Azad A.K., Ali N., Hossain M., Hossain M.S. Demand-Based Water Options for Arsenic Mitigation: An Experience from Rural Bangladesh. Public Health 2004, 118:70-77.
34. Hossain M.F. Arsenic contamination in Bangladesh-an overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 113:1-16.
35. Jeanty P.W. Constructing Krinsky and Robb Confidence Interval for Mean and Median WTP Using Stata 2007, Stata Users Group.
36. Johansson P.O. Evaluating Health Risks: an Economic Approach 1995, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
37. Kabir A., Howard G. Sustainability of arsenic mitigation in Bangladesh: results of a functionality survey. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2007, 17(3):207-218.
38. Khan M.Z.H., Haque A.K.E. Economic Cost of Arsenic Disaster: Policy Choices for Bangladesh 2010, ERG Occasional Paper, Economic Research Group, Bangladesh, 1/2010.
39. Khan N.I., Bruce D., Naidu R., Owens G. Implementation of food frequency questionnaire for the assessment of total dietary arsenic intake in Bangladesh: part B, preliminary findings. Environ. Geochem. Health 2009, 31:221-238.
40. Khan N.I., Yang H. Arsenic mitigation in Bangladesh: an analysis of institutional stakeholders' opinions. Sci Total Environ. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.007.
41. Konishi Y., Adachi K. Aframework for estimating willingness-to-pay to avoid endogenous environmental risks. Resour. Energy Econ. 2011, 33:130-154.
42. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 715-719.
43. Lamm S.H., et al. Bladder cancer and arsenic exposure: differences in the two populations enrolled in a study in Southwest Taiwan. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2003, 16:355.
44. Lindberg A.L., et al. The risk of arsenic induced skin lesions in Bangladeshi men and women is affected by arsenic metabolism and the age at first exposure. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm. 2008, 230:9-16.
45. Lindhjem H., Navrud S., Braathen N.A., Biausque V. Valuing lives saved from environment, transport and health policies. a meta analysis. Risk Anal. 2011, 31(9):1381-1407.
46. Loomis J.B., DuVair P.H. Evaluating the effect of alternative risk communication devices on willingness to pay: results from a dichotomous choice contingent valuation experiment. Land Econ. 1993, 287-298.
47. Maddison D., et al. Valuing the arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 31:459-476.
48. Marshall G., et al. Fifty-year study of lung and bladder cancer mortality in Chile related to arsenic in drinking water. J.Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007, 99:920-928.
49. McFadden D. Contingent valuation and social choice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76:689-708.
50. Milton A.H., et al. Association between nutritional status and arsenicosis due to chronic arsenic exposure in Bangladesh. Int. J. Environ. Health Risk 2004, 14:99-108.
51. Ng J.C., et al. Aglobal health problem caused by arsenic from natural sources. Chemosphere 2003, 52:1353-1359.
52. Pearce D.W., Turner R.K. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment 1990, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
53. Pierce B.L., et al. Arsenic exposure, dietary patterns, and skin lesion risk in Bangladesh: a prospective study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 173:345-354.
54. Poe G.L., Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87:353-365.
55. Rahman M., et al. Prevalence of arsenic exposure and skin lesions. A population based survey in Matlab, Bangladesh. J.Epidemiol. Commun. Health 2006, 60:242-248.
56. Ravenscroft P., et al. Water Supply Mitigation Arsenic Pollution: a Global Synthesis 2009, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. 10.1002/9781444308785.
57. Rondeau D., Schulze W.D., Poe G.L. Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism. J.Public Econ. 1999, 72:455-470.
58. Roy J. Economic benefits of arsenic removal from ground water - a case study from West Bengal, India. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 397:1-12.
59. Shafiquzzaman M., et al. Technical and social evaluation of arsenic mitigation in rural Bangladesh. JHPN 2009, 27:674-683.
60. Shogren J.F., Crocker T.D. Risk, self-protection, and ex ante economic value. J.Environ. Econ. Manag. 1991, 20:1-15.
61. Smith A.H., et al. Contamination of drinking-water by arsenic in Bangladesh: a public health emergency. Bull World Health Organ 2000, 78:1093-1103.
62. Steinmaus C., et al. Case-control study of bladder cancer and drinking water arsenic in the western United States. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003, 158:1193-1201.
63. Vassanadumrongdee S., Matsuoka S. Risk perceptions and value of a statistical life for air pollution and traffic accidents: evidence from Bangkok, Thailand. J.Risk Uncertain. 2005, 30(3):261-287.
64. Viscusi W.K. Rational Risk Policy. The Arne Ryde Memorial Lectures Series 1998, Oxford University Press, Oxford, ISBN-13: 9780198293637.
65. Welsh M.P., Poe G.L. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J.Environ. Econ. Manag. 1998, 36:170-185.
66. Whitehead J.C. Incentive incompatibility and starting point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Econ. 2002, 78(2):285-297.
67. Whitehead J.C. Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions: reply. Land Econ. 2004, 80(2):316-319.
68. Whittington D. What have we learned from 20 years of stated preference research in less-developed countries?. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2010, 2:209-236.
69. Willis K.G., Garrod G.D., Saunders C.M. Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: a contingent valuation assessment. J.Environ. Manag. 1995, 44:105-125.