Comparing Willingness to Pay for Improved Drinking-Water Quality Using Stated Preference Methods in Rural and Urban Kenya

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 81-94

  Brouwer, Roy ^a   Job, Fumbi Crescent ^b   van der Kroon, Bianca ^a   Johnston, Richard ^c  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

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

^c WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRINKING WATER;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DIARRHEA; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEMALE; FILTER DESIGN; FOLLOW UP; GRAVITY DRIVEN MEMBRANE FILTER; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; KENYA; MALE; MARKETING; MEMBRANE FILTER; RURAL AREA; TECHNOLOGY; URBAN AREA; URBAN RURAL DIFFERENCE; WATER QUALITY; WATER TREATMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECONOMICS; FILTRATION; MICROPORE FILTER; RURAL POPULATION; SOCIOECONOMICS; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; URBAN POPULATION;

DRINKING WATER; FILTRATION; HUMANS; KENYA; MICROPORE FILTERS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RURAL POPULATION; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; URBAN POPULATION; WATER QUALITY;

EID: 84943588526     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-014-0137-2     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. WHO-UNICEF. Progress in drinking water and sanitation: 2012 update. New York: WHO and UNICEF; 2012.
2. Government of Kenya. Population and housing census results, Ministry of Planning and Vision 2030. Nairobi: Government of Kenya; 2009.
3. USAID, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Demographic and health survey. Nairobi: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics; 2009.
4. Murage EW, Ndingu AM. Quality of water the slum dwellers use, the case of a kenyan slum. J Urban Health. 2007;84:829–38.
5. Peter-Varbanets M, Hammes F, Vital M, Pronk W. Stabilization of flux during dead-end ultra-low pressure ultrafiltration. J Water Res. 2010;44:3607–16.
6. Tornheim JA, Manya AS, Oyando N, Kabaka S, O’Reilly CE, Breiman RF, Feikin DR. The epidemiology of hospitalization with diarrhea in rural Kenya: the utility of existing health facility data in developing countries. Int J Infect Dis. 2010;14:e499–505.
7. Mirza MN, Caulfield LE, Black RE, Macharia WM. Risk factors for diarrheal duration. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;146:776–85.
8. Sobsey MD. Managing water in the home: accelerated health gains from improved water supply. Water, Sanitation and Health, Department of Protection of the Human Environment. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO); 2002.
9. Peter-Varbanets M, Zurbrügg C, Swartz C, Pronk W. Decentralized systems for potable water and the potential of membrane technology. J Water Res. 2009;43:245–65.
10. Peter-Varbanets M, Margot J, Traber J, Pronk W. Mechanisms of membrane fouling during ultra-low pressure ultrafiltration. J Membr Sci. 2011;377:42–53.
11. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv. 2001;15(3):435–62.
12. Birol E, Koundouri P, editors. Choice experiments informing environmental policy: a European perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2008.
13. Carson RT, Louviere J. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ. 2011;49(4):539–59.
14. Hensher DA, Shore N, Train K. Water supply security and willingness to pay to avoid drought restrictions. Econ Rec. 2006;82(256):56–66.
15. Hasler B, Lundhede T, Martinsen L, Neye S, Schou JS. Valuation of groundwater protection versus water treatment in Denmark by choice experiments and contingent valuation. Technical report no. 543. Denmark: National Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Ministry of the Environment; 2005.
16. Yoshida K, Kanai S. Estimating the economic value of improvements in drinking water quality using averting expenditures and choice experiments. Multilevel Environmental Governance for Sustainable Development, Discussion Paper No. 07-02. 2007.
17. Tarfasa S, Brouwer R. Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment. Appl Econ. 2013;45(9):1099–108.
18. Null C, Kremer M, Miguel E, Garcia Hombrados J, Meeks R, Peterson Zwane A. Willingness to pay for cleaner water in less developed countries: systematic review of experimental evidence. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), Systematic Review 006; 2012.
19. Briscoe J, Furtado de Castro P, Griffen C, North J, Olsen O. Toward equitable and sustainable rural water supplies: a contingent valuation study in Brazil. World Bank Econ Rev. 1990;4(2):115–34.
20. Griffin CC, Briscoe J, Singh B, Ramasubban R, Bhatia R. Contingent valuation and actual behavior: predicting connection to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India. World Bank Eco Rev. 1995;9:373–95.
21. Venczel L. Evaluation and application of a mixed oxidant disinfectant system for waterbourne disease prevention. PhD dissertation submitted to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 1997.
22. Goldblatt M. Assessing the effective demand for improved water supplies in informal settlements: a willingness to pay survey in Vlakfontein and Finetown, Johannesburg. Geoforum. 1999;30(1):27–41.
23. Raje RV, Dhobe PS, Deshpande AW. Consumer’s willingness to pay more for municipal supplied water: a case study. Ecol Econ. 2002;42:391–400.
24. Whittington D, Pattanayak SK, Yang J, Bal Kumar KC. Household demand for improved piped water services: evidence from Kathmandu, Nepal. Water Policy. 2002;4:531–56.
25. Clasen T, Brown J, Collin S, Suntura O, Cairncross S. Reducing diarrhea through the use of household-based ceramic water filters: a randomized, controlled trial in rural Bolivia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2004;70(6):651–7.
26. Ahmad J, Goldar B, Misra S. Value of arsenic-free drinking water to rural households in Bangladesh. J Environ Manag. 2005;74(2):173–85.
27. Casey JF, Kahn JR. Willingness to pay for improved water service in Manaus Amazonas, Brazil. Ecol Econ. 2006;58(2):365–72.
28. Vasquez WF, Mozumder P, Hernandez-Arce J, Berrens RP. Willingness to for safe drinking water: evidence from Parral Mexico. J Environ Manag. 2009;90(11):3391–400.
29. Khan N, Brouwer R, Yang H. Household’s willingness to pay for arsenic safe drinking water in Bangladesh. J Environ Manag. 2014;143:151–61.
30. US EPA 2003. Children’s health valuation handbook. EPA report 100-R-03-003.
31. Fischer Walker CL, Perin J, Aryee MJ, Boschi-Pinto C, Black RE. Diarrhea incidence in low- and middle-income countries in 1990 and 2010: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:220.
32. Scapecchi P. Valuation differences between adults and children. In: Economic valuation of environmental health risks to children. OECD. 2006. p. 79–119.
33. Cameron TA, DeShazo JR, Johnson JA. The effect of children on adult demands for health-risk reductions. J Health Econ. 2010;29:364–76.
34. Hammitt JK, Haninger K. Valuing fatal risks to children and adults: effects of disease, latency, and risk aversion. J Risk Uncertain. 2010;40:57–83.
35. Hynes S, Campbell D, Howley P. A holistic vs. an attribute-based approach to agri-environmental policy valuation: Do welfare estimates differ? J Agric Econ. 2011;62(2):305–29.
36. Rolfe J, Windle J. The sequencing effects of paired experiments with choice experiments and contingent valuation. Istanbul: Paper presented at the World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists; 2014.
37. Scarpa R. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland: comment. J Agric Econ. 2000;51(1):122–8.
38. Cameron TA, Poe GL, Ethier RG, Schulze WD. Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same? J Environ Econ Manag. 2002;44(3):391–425.
39. Foster V, Mourato S. Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope. Environ Resour Econ. 2003;24(2):141–60.
40. Mogas J, Riera P, Bennett J. A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions. J For Econ. 2006;12(1):5–30.
41. van der Kroon B, Brouwer R, van Beukering P. The impact of the household decision environment on fuel choice behavior. Energy Econ. 2014;44:236–47.
42. Nakuru District Statistical Office: Nakuru; 2012.
43. Yillia PT, Kreuzinger N, Mathooko JM. The effect of in-stream activities on the Njoro River, Kenya. Part II: microbial water quality. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C. 2008;33:729–37.
44. Silas K, Moses LK, Mwaniki NEN, Okemo PO. Bacteriological quality and diarrhoeagenic pathogens on river Njoro and Nakuru municipal water, Kenya. Int J Biotechnol Mol Biol Res. 2011;2(9):150–62.
45. Kiruki S, Limo M, Njagi E, Paul O. Bacteriological quality and diarrhoeagenic pathogens on River Njoro and Nakuru Municipal water, Kenya. Int J Biotechnol Mol Biol Res. 2011;2:150–62.
46. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Kenya facts and figures 2012. Nairobi; Kenya National Bureau of Statistics; 2012.
47. Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res. 1993;30(3):305–14.
48. Bhat CR. Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp Res Part B. 2001;35:677–93.
49. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
50. Krinsky I, Robb AL. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat. 1986;68:715–9.
51. Poe GL, Giraud KL, Loomis JB. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agric Econ. 2005;87(2):353–65.
52. Hensher DA, Shore N, Train K. Households’ willingness to pay for water service attributes. Environ Resour Econ. 2005;32(4):509–31.
53. Jin J, Wang Z, Ran S. Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecol Econ. 2006;57(3):430–41.
54. Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2009;18(4):389–401.
55. Whitty JA. Insensitivity to scope in contingent valuation studies: new direction for an old problem. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(6):361–3.
56. Søgaard R, Lindholt J, Gyrd-Hansen D. Insensitivity to scope in contingent valuation studies: reason for dismissal of valuations? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10 (6):397-405.