IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/45y2013i9p1099-1108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Solomon Tarfasa
  • Roy Brouwer

Abstract

Improving existing drinking water supply services in developing countries depends crucially on available financial resources. Cost recovery rates of these services are typically low, while demand for more reliable services is high and rapidly growing. Most stated preference-based demand studies in the developing world apply the contingent valuation method and focus on rural areas. This study examines household Willingness to Pay (WTP) for improved water supply services in a choice experiment in an urban area in Ethiopia, a country with the lowest water supply coverage in Sub-Saharan Africa. The design of the choice experiment allows estimation of the value of both drinking water supply reliability and safety. The estimated economic values can be used in policy appraisals of improved supply investment decisions. Despite significant income constraints, households are willing to pay up to 80% extra for improved levels of water supply over and above their current water bill. Women and households living in the poorest part of the city with the lowest service levels value the improvement of water quality most. As expected, also averting behaviour and expenditures play an important role.

Suggested Citation

  • Solomon Tarfasa & Roy Brouwer, 2013. "Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1099-1108, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:45:y:2013:i:9:p:1099-1108
    DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2011.613793
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00036846.2011.613793
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00036846.2011.613793?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whittington, Dale, 1998. "Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-30, January.
    2. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    3. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    4. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    5. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    7. Whittington, Dale & Briscoe, John & Mu, Xinming & Barron, William, 1990. "Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Water Services in Developing Countries: A Case Study of the Use of Contingent Valuation Surveys in Southern Haiti," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 293-311, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Provencher, Bill & Bishop, R.C.Richard C., 2004. "Does accounting for preference heterogeneity improve the forecasting of a random utility model? A case study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 793-810, July.
    10. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    11. Blamey, Russell K. & Gordon, Jenny & Chapman, Ross, 1999. "Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(3), pages 1-21, September.
    12. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    13. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    14. Thomas P. Holmes & Kevin J. Boyle, 2005. "Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    15. Brown, Thomas C. & Kingsley, David & Peterson, George L. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Clarke, Andrea & Birjulin, Andrej, 2008. "Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 1595-1606, July.
    16. Roy Brouwer & Thijs Dekker & John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 93-109, May.
    17. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
    18. Edward Morey & Kathleen Greer Rossmann, 2003. "Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic Heterogeneity, Random Parameters, and Mixture Models," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 215-229, November.
    19. 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.
    20. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2006. "Water Supply Security and Willingness to Pay to Avoid Drought Restrictions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 56-66, March.
    21. Kinfe, G/Egzabher & Berhanu, Adenew, 2009. "Valuing water supply service improvements in Addis Ababa," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-99, February.
    22. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    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. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Alemu Mekonnen & Zenebe Gebreegziabher & Abebe D. Beyene & Fitsum Hagos, 2019. "Valuation of Access to Irrigation Water in Rural Ethiopia: Application of Choice Experiment and Contingent Valuation Methods," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(01), pages 1-26, September.
    4. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Joseph Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Public Value of Marine Biodiesel Technology Development in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, November.
    6. Massarutto, Antonio & Roder, G. & Troiano, S., 2022. "Better safe than sorry? Stated preferences and the precautionary principle for securing drinking water quality in an Italian district," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    7. Hyo-Jin Kim & Jeong-In Chang & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2019. "Non-Market Valuation of Water Pollution Remediation and Disaster Risk Mitigation Functions: The Case of Nakdong River Estuary in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-9, February.
    8. Brouwer, Roy & Sharmin, Dilruba F. & Elliott, Susan & Liu, Jennifer & Khan, Mizan R., 2023. "Costs and benefits of improving water and sanitation in slums and non-slum neighborhoods in Dhaka, a fast-growing mega-city," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    9. Hyo-Jin Kim & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "The South Korean public’s evaluation of the mix of power generation sources: A choice experiment study," Energy & Environment, , vol. 31(7), pages 1181-1190, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Hee-Jong Yang & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Environmental Costs of Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, September.
    12. Ju-Hee Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Economic Value of Building a Firefighter Training Academy for Urban Disaster Management in Seoul, South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Nur Syuhada, C.I. & Mahirah, K. & Roseliza, M.A., 2020. "Dealing with attributes in a discrete choice experiment on valuation of water services in East Peninsular Malaysia," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Social acceptance of offshore wind energy development in South Korea: Results from a choice experiment survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.

    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. Santos, Rui & Clemente, Pedro & Brouwer, Roy & Antunes, Paula & Pinto, Rute, 2015. "Landowner preferences for agri-environmental agreements to conserve the montado ecosystem in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 159-167.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Thijs Dekker & Paul Koster & Roy Brouwer, 2014. "Changing with the Tide: Semiparametric Estimation of Preference Dynamics," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 717-745.
    6. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    7. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    8. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    9. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    10. Roy Brouwer & Thijs Dekker & John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 93-109, May.
    11. Roy Brouwer & Ivana Logar & Oleg Sheremet, 2017. "Choice Consistency and Preference Stability in Test-Retests of Discrete Choice Experiment and Open-Ended Willingness to Pay Elicitation Formats," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 729-751, November.
    12. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    13. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    14. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    15. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    16. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    17. Ida, Takanori & Goto, Rei, 2009. "Interdependency among addictive behaviours and time/risk preferences: Discrete choice model analysis of smoking, drinking, and gambling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 608-621, August.
    18. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    19. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:taf:applec:45:y:2013:i:9:p:1099-1108. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.