IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/inrvec/v72y2025i2d10.1007_s12232-025-00505-x.html

Households willingness to pay for an improved water supply system: a case study of Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Naveed Hayat

    (University of Education, Department of Economics, Division of Management and Administrative Science)

  • Muhammad Waqas

    (University of Education, Department of Economics, Division of Management and Administrative Science)

Abstract

Pakistan has made significant progress in improving access to clean and safe drinking water. However, the task is far from complete, as nearly 64% of the population still lacks access to safe drinking water. In this situation, a well-organized and comprehensive plan to enhance the country’s water supply services is urgently needed. Accordingly, investigating the willingness to pay (WTP) for an Improved Water Supply System (IWSS) becomes essential. The main objective of this study is to analyze households’ WTP for IWSS, while the secondary objective is to identify the key determinants influencing this WTP. To achieve these objectives, a logit regression model was applied using data from 59,543 households drawn from the most recent Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement (PSLM) survey. The results indicate that, on average, households in Pakistan are willing to pay PKR 401 per month for IWSS. Rural households demonstrate a significantly higher average WTP (PKR 481/month) compared with urban households (PKR 149/month). Regionally, households in Baluchistan showed the highest WTP (PKR 694/month), followed by households in Sindh (PKR 461/month). Conversely, households in Punjab reported the lowest WTP (PKR 189/month), followed by households in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, with only PKR 59/month. Findings from the logit regression analysis reveal that the high-income households are willing to pay more for IWSS than the low-income households. Households that rely on water sources such as piped water, wells, springs, ponds, rivers or canals, bottled water, tanker water, and filtration plants are more likely to be willing to pay for an improved water supply system. Similarly, households using government-installed water systems exhibit a higher WTP, whereas those with self-installed systems are less inclined to contribute. The likelihood of WTP increases when the nearest water source is located 0.5–1 km away but decreases when the distance extends to 1–2 km. Households that use water purification measures and those living in owner-occupied houses are also more willing to pay. Moreover, each additional room in a house is associated with a higher probability of WTP for IWSS. The findings of this research can be effectively utilized in cost-benefit analyses to evaluate the economic feasibility of investing in improved water supply systems across Pakistan.

Suggested Citation

  • Naveed Hayat & Muhammad Waqas, 2025. "Households willingness to pay for an improved water supply system: a case study of Pakistan," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 72(2), pages 1-28, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:inrvec:v:72:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12232-025-00505-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s12232-025-00505-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12232-025-00505-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12232-025-00505-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sidrat Asim & Heman D. Lohano, 2015. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Tap Water Services in Karachi, Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 54(4), pages 507-526.
    2. 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.
    3. Jia Wang & Jiaoju Ge & Zhifeng Gao, 2018. "Consumers’ Preferences and Derived Willingness-to-Pay for Water Supply Safety Improvement: The Analysis of Pricing and Incentive Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Muhammad Rahman & Sher Ali & Naveed Hayat, 2022. "Households Health Cost from Water Borne Diseases in District Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan," iRASD Journal of Economics, International Research Alliance for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 4(4), pages 633-646, December.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kai Xiong & Fanbin Kong & Ning Zhang & Ni Lei & Chuanwang Sun, 2018. "Analysis of the Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay and Payout Level for Ecological Environment Improvement of the Ganjiang River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Jia, Zhijie & Lin, Boqiang, 2021. "The impact of removing cross subsidies in electric power industry in China: Welfare, economy, and CO2 emission," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    5. 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".
    6. Massarutto, Antonio & Troiano, Stefania, 2025. "Maintaining water service quality in the face of climate change: Can stated-preference analysis support priority setting?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    7. Che Ibrahim, Nur Syuhada & Kamaludin, Mahirah & Shaari, Nur Fatihah, 2019. "A Discrete Choice Experiment in Estimate Public Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Water Services in Terengganu, Malaysia," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 53(2), pages 213-225.
    8. Henningsen, Geraldine & Wiese, Catharina, 2019. "Do Household Characteristics Really Matter? A Meta-Analysis on the Determinants of Households’ Energy-Efficiency Investments," MPRA Paper 101701, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Marie-Pier Schinck & Chloé L’Ecuyer-Sauvageau & Justin Leroux & Charlène Kermagoret & Jérôme Dupras, 2020. "Risk, Drinking Water and Harmful Algal Blooms: A Contingent Valuation of Water Bans," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(12), pages 3933-3947, September.
    10. Cook, Joseph & Wagner, Jake & Newell, Gunnar, 2020. "A Decision Support Tool for Rural Water Supply Planning," EfD Discussion Paper 20-6, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    11. Debasish Kumar Das & Md. Sariful Islam & Sheikh Hadiujjaman & Champa Bati Dutta & Md. Manjur Morshed, 2019. "Health cost of salinity contamination in drinking water: evidence from Bangladesh," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(3), pages 371-397, July.
    12. Junaid Alam Memon & Junaid Ishaq & Fateh Muhammad Mari, 2020. "Public Demand for Improved Urban Water Supply Services in Multan," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 16(1), pages 16-12.
    13. Wagner, Johannes & Merner, Sara & Innocenti, Stefania & Geling, Alinta & Hope, Rob, 2025. "Can solar water kiosks generate sustainable revenue streams for rural water services?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    14. Katarzyna Pietrucha-Urbanik & Janusz R. Rak, 2020. "Consumers’ Perceptions of the Supply of Tap Water in Crisis Situations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    15. David Moroz & Amandine Laré & Navaneetham Subramaniam & Cuthbert Madzivanyika, 2026. "Mapping the research landscape on SDG 6: A bibliometric analysis," Post-Print hal-05565866, HAL.
    16. Ren, Yongwang & Bergtold, Jason & Gharib, Mariam & Osman, Eliyasu & Sutley, Elaina & Sharmin, Rumana, 2025. "Determinants of Willingness-to-Pay to Avoid Water Outage under Extreme Weather Events," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 361201, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Leiva, Benjamin & Van Houtven, George & Vásquez, William F. & Nájera, Andrea, 2023. "Valuing water service reliability and in-home water storage: A hedonic price model from Guatemala," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    18. Junaid Alam Memon & Junaid Ishaq & Fateh Muhammad Mari, 2020. "Public Demand for Improved Urban Water Supply Services in Multan," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 16(1), pages 171-192.
    19. Wang, Yanying & Jin, Yana & Lin, Huan & Wan, Wei & Zhang, Shiqiu, 2024. "Valuing mortality risk reductions in a fast-developing society: A meta-analysis of stated preference studies in China from 1998 to 2019," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 363(C).
    20. Subroy, Vandana & Gunawardena, Asha & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Pannell, David J., 2019. "The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    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:spr:inrvec:v:72:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12232-025-00505-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.