IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pai/wpaper/22-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Willingness to pay for improved water service: evidence from urban Peru

Author

Listed:
  • Galarza, Francisco

    (Universidad del Pacífico)

  • Carbajal Navarro, Max Arturo

    (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú)

  • Aguirre Montoya, Julio

    (Universidad del Pacífico)

Abstract

We study the willingness to pay (WTP) for a large set of improvements in water service related to water quality, continuity, and securing access for people with no house piped water during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from urban Peru, and the contingent valuation method, we estimate a mean WTP of around PEN 4.3 (USD 1.05), 3.7 and 1.8, respectively, for the aforementioned sets of improvements, with the combined WTP representing a 23% increase in the households’ water service monthly bill. We find that the WTP for all sets of improvements is influenced by the expenditure in bottled water (which acts as a substitute for tap water) and a proxy variable for household assets. The influence of the individual characteristics typically scrutinized by the literature (e.g. sex, age, and education) varies with the type of improvement examined. We find a significant heterogeneity in WTP across providers and calculate the users’ contribution to a water fund that could crowd-in the public investment in water infrastructure.

Suggested Citation

  • Galarza, Francisco & Carbajal Navarro, Max Arturo & Aguirre Montoya, Julio, 2022. "Willingness to pay for improved water service: evidence from urban Peru," Working Papers 22-03, Centro de Investigación, Universidad del Pacífico.
    • Handle: RePEc:pai:wpaper:22-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repositorio.up.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/11354/3747/DD2203.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivan Lucich & Max A. Carbajal, 2014. "Valor de la conservación de la fuente de agua y de los atributos del servicio de abastecimiento de agua de SEDACUSCO: una aproximación usando experimentos de elección," Investigaciones, Consorcio de Investigación Económica y Social.
    2. Lilia Rodríguez-Tapia & Daniel A. Revollo-Fernández & Jorge A. Morales-Novelo, 2017. "Household’s Perception of Water Quality and Willingness to Pay for Clean Water in Mexico City," Economies, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Olivier Beaumais & Anne Briand & Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges, 2010. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Better Tap Water Quality? A Cross-Country Valuation Study," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10051, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    4. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    5. Anthony Amoah & Peter G. Moffatt, 2021. "Willingness to pay for reliable piped water services: evidence from urban Ghana," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(4), pages 805-829, October.
    6. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    7. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    8. Griffin, Charles C, et al, 1995. "Contingent Valuation and Actual Behavior: Predicting Connections to New Water Systems in the State of Kerala, India," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 9(3), pages 373-395, 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. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    2. Moeltner, Klaus & Boyle, Kevin J. & Paterson, Robert W., 2007. "Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 250-269, March.
    3. Leslie Richardson & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2013. "Valuing Morbidity from Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparison of Revealed and Stated Preference Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 76-100.
    4. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers 10503, Resources for the Future.
    5. Sana AKHTAR & Sarah DEAN & Faiza ANJUM & Maryam JAVED, 2018. "Determination of Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply in Selected Areas of Lahore," Chinese Journal of Urban and Environmental Studies (CJUES), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(02), pages 1-12, June.
    6. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    7. Di Vita, Giuseppe & D'amico, Mario & Lombardi, Alessia & Pecorino, Biagio, 2016. "Evaluating trends of low sodium content in food: The willingness to pay for salt-reduced bread, a case study," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2), June.
    8. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    9. Robert Johnston & Klaus Moeltner, 2014. "Meta-Modeling and Benefit Transfer: The Empirical Relevance of Source-Consistency in Welfare Measures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 337-361, November.
    10. Rolfe, John & Dyack, Brenda, 2010. "Testing for convergent validity between travel cost and contingent valuation estimates of recreation values in the Coorong, Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 1-17.
    11. Maciej Sobolewski & Michał Paliński, 2017. "How much consumers value on-line privacy? Welfare assessment of new data protection regulation (GDPR)," Working Papers 2017-17, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    13. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.
    14. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Rodgers Makwinja & Ishmael Bobby Mphangwe Kosamu & Chikumbusko Chiziwa Kaonga, 2019. "Determinants and Values of Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvement: Insights from Chia Lagoon, Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
    16. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    18. Francesco Jacopo Pintus, 2023. "Valuing drinking water quality after a PFAS contamination event: results from a meta-analysis benefit transfer," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0308, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    19. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Access to tap water; Contingent valuation method; Continuity; COVID-19; Households; Quality; Safe water; Willingness to pay.;
    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
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • L95 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Gas Utilities; Pipelines; Water Utilities
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pai:wpaper:22-03. 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: Giit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deiuppe.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.