IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Urban Water Restrictions: Unbundling Motivations, Compliance and Policy Viability


  • Cooper, Bethany
  • Crase, Lin


The welfare costs of urban water restrictions are now well recognised, even if not yet quantified with precision (see, for example, Edwards 2008). Notwithstanding the costs that attend this form of intervention, governments have proven reluctant to abandon them, at least until additional infrastructure is in place. Accordingly, some form of behavioural constraint over the use of water is now applied in almost every major urban centre in Australia. Against this background there is value in understanding the motivations for individuals to comply with water restrictions. There is also much to be gained from developing an appreciation of the preferences for different restriction regimes. There is also scope to address wider politico-economic considerations as part of this analysis. This paper considers some of these issues by presenting the results of a choice modelling and contingent valuation study drawing data from New South Wales and Victoria. The study also embodies data from water-rich and water-poor communities in metropolitan and regional settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Cooper, Bethany & Crase, Lin, 2009. "Urban Water Restrictions: Unbundling Motivations, Compliance and Policy Viability," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48039, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:48039

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), September.
    2. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), September.
    3. Ron Johnston, 2005. "On journals," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 37(1), pages 2-8, January.
    4. Bulte, Erwin & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 330-342, March.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    6. Wendy Kenyon & Gareth Edwards-Jones, 1998. "What Level of Information Enables the Public to Act Like Experts When Evaluating Ecological Goods?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 463-475.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Gisele Magnusson & Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 2002. "Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1362-1370.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. John M. Clements, 2016. "The Influence of Religiously and Scientifically Framed Messages on Agreement with Water Use Restrictions," Social Sciences, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 5(4), pages 1-15, November.

    More about this item


    Urban water; water restrictions; choice modelling; contingent valuation; compliance behaviour;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ags:aare09:48039. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.