IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eab/develo/23062.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Value of Improved Public Services : An Application of the Choice Experiment Method to Estimate the Value of Improved Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure in India

Author

Listed:
  • Ekin Birol

    (Madras School of Economics)

  • Sukanya Das

Abstract

In this paper we employ a stated preference environmental valuation technique, namely the choice experiment method, to estimate local publics willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements in the capacity and technology of a sewage treatment plant (STP) in Chandernagore municipality, located on the banks of the River Ganga in India. A pilot choice experiment study is administered to 150 randomly selected Chandernagore residents and the data are analysed using the conditional logit model with interactions. The results reveal that residents of this municipality are willing to pay significant amounts in terms of higher monthly municipality taxes to ensure the full capacity of the STP is used for primary treatment and the technology is upgraded to enable secondary treatment. Overall, the results reported in this paper supports increased investments to improve the capacity and technology of STPs to reduce water pollution, and hence environmental and health risks that are currently threatening the sustainability of the economic, cultural and religious values this sacred river generates.

Suggested Citation

  • Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "The Value of Improved Public Services : An Application of the Choice Experiment Method to Estimate the Value of Improved Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure in India," Development Economics Working Papers 23062, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:eab:develo:23062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eaber.org/node/23062
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    2. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe & Kountouris, Yiannis, 2009. "Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water scarce regions: The roles of economic valuation, cost–benefit analysis and discounting," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51692, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Cooper, Philip & Poe, Gregory L. & Bateman, Ian J., 2004. "The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-82, September.
    4. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    6. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
    7. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe & Kountouris, Yiannis, 2010. "Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water-scarce regions: Combining economic valuation, cost-benefit analysis and discounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 839-847, February.
    8. Fraas, Arthur G. & Munley, Vincent G., 1984. "Municipal wastewater treatment cost," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 28-38, March.
    9. Fernandez, Linda, 1997. "Estimation of Wastewater Treatment Objectives through Maximum Entropy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 293-308, March.
    10. Glenn Bush & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Should all Choices Count? Using the Cut-Offs Approach to Edit Responses in a Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 397-414, November.
    11. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), 2010. "Choice Experiments in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13208.
    12. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    13. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    14. Wang, Hua, 2002. "Pollution regulation and abatement efforts: evidence from China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 85-94, April.
    15. Scarpa, Riccardo & Drucker, Adam G. & Anderson, Simon & Ferraes-Ehuan, Nancy & Gomez, Veronica & Risopatron, Carlos R. & Rubio-Leonel, Olga, 2003. "Valuing genetic resources in peasant economies: the case of 'hairless' creole pigs in Yucatan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 427-443, July.
    16. Scarpa, Riccardo & Ruto, Eric S. K. & Kristjanson, Patti & Radeny, Maren & Drucker, Adam G. & Rege, John E. O., 2003. "Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 409-426, July.
    17. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    18. Peter Abelson, 1996. "Valuing Water Quality in Wuxi, China," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Project Appraisal and Valuation of the Environment, chapter 5, pages 88-118, Palgrave Macmillan.
    19. De Groote, Hugo & Kimenju, Simon Chege, 2008. "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, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 362-370, August.
    20. Wuyang Hu, 2004. "Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(3), pages 389-408, September.
    21. Birol, Ekin & Villalba, Eric Rayn & Smale, Melinda, 2009. "Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 521-540, August.
    22. Markandya, A. & Murty, M.N., 2004. "Cost–benefit analysis of cleaning the Ganges: some emerging environment and development issues," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 61-81, February.
    23. Othman, Jamal & Bennett, Jeff & Blamey, Russell, 2004. "Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modelling experience in Malaysia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(6), pages 803-824, December.
    24. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    25. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    26. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2005. "Valuing options for reserve water in the Fitzroy Basin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 1-24.
    27. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    28. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    29. Areti Kontogianni & Ian Langford & Andreas Papandreou & Mihalis Skourtos, 2003. "Social Preferences for Improving Water Quality: An Economic Analysis of Benefits from Wastewater Treatment," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 17(5), pages 317-336, October.
    30. Peter Abelson, 1996. "Project Appraisal and Valuation of the Environment," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-37474-4, December.
    31. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    32. Hope, R.A., 2006. "Evaluating water policy scenarios against the priorities of the rural poor," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 167-179, January.
    33. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1999. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: The Use of Latent Class Analysis," Staff Paper Series 24090, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    34. Showers, Kate B., 2002. "Water Scarcity and Urban Africa: An Overview of Urban-Rural Water Linkages," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 621-648, April.
    35. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Dugald Tinch & Andrew Black & Ashar Aftab, 2006. "Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(3), pages 391-413, September.
    36. Bienabe, Estelle & Hearne, Robert R., 2006. "Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 335-348, December.
    37. Barton, David N., 2002. "The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 147-164, August.
    38. Desvousges, William H. & Smith, V. Kerry & Fisher, Ann, 1987. "Option price estimates for water quality improvements: A contingent valuation study for the monongahela river," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 248-267, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thiagu Ranganathan & Sarthak Gaurav & Ashish Singh, 2014. "Using choice experiments, we estimate the willingness to pay for price insurance among cotton and paddy farmers in the Indian state of Gujarat. We also identify the interactions between the demand for," IEG Working Papers 340, Institute of Economic Growth.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Birol, Ekin & Phoebe, Koundouri & Yiannis, Kountouris, 2008. "Using the Choice Experiment Method to Inform River Management in Poland: Flood Risk Reduction vs. Habitat Conservation in the Upper Silesia Region," MPRA Paper 41906, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Birol, Ekin & Das, Sukanya, 2010. "Valuing the environment in developing countries: Modeling the impact of distrust in public authorities' ability to deliver public services on the citizens' willingness to pay for improved environmenta," IFPRI discussion papers 1043, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Kikulwe, Enoch & Birol, Ekin & Wesseler, Justus & Falck-Zepeda, José, 2009. "A latent class approach to investigating consumer demand for genetically modified staple food in a developing country: The case of GM bananas in Uganda," IFPRI discussion papers 938, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    8. Birol, Ekin & Villalba, Eric Rayn & Smale, Melinda, 2009. "Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 521-540, August.
    9. Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "Valuing the Environment in Developing Countries: Modeling the Impact of Distrust in Public Authorities’ Ability to Deliver on the Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Environmental Quality," Working Papers 2010-055, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    10. Kikulwe, Enoch M. & Birol, Ekin & Wesseler, Justus & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin, 2013. "Benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions of the potential introduction of a fungus-resistant banana in Uganda and policy implications," IFPRI book chapters, in: Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Gruère, Guillaume P. & Sithole-Niang, Idah (ed.), Genetically modified crops in Africa: Economic and policy lessons from countries south of the Sahara, chapter 4, pages 99-141, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    12. Oparinde, Adewale & Birol, Ekin, 2011. "Farm households' preference for cash-based compensation versus livelihood-enhancing programs: A choice experiment to inform avian flu compensation policy in Nigeria," IFPRI discussion papers 1072, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    14. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    15. Marva Stithou & Yiannis Kountouris & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1116, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    16. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    18. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    19. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol, 2010. "Introduction: The Roles and Significance of Choice Experiments in Developing Country Contexts," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice experiment method; conditional logit model; River Ganga; sewage treatment plant; water quality; water quantity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • C87 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Econometric Software
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eab:develo:23062. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Shiro Armstrong (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaberau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.