IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cmpart/334752.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique

Author

Listed:
  • Graça, Manjate

Abstract

This study uses the double-bounded bid elicitation format to test whether the willingness to pay (WTP) of 244 randomly selected residents of Maputo and Matola cities for wastewater quality improvements in the Infulene Valley is sensitive to internal and external scope. The Infulene Valley was selected because its wastewater is used as an input in vegetable irrigation. WTP was elicited and compared when the level of wastewater treatment was 100 % and when it was 50 %. The results show that the majority of those interviewed display high levels of knowledge regarding the risks associated with poor quality irrigation water, and that they have attitudes and perceptions receptive to a policy that aims to improve irrigation water quality. The WTP responses passed the bottom up (t= 15.28, p=0.000) and top down (t=14.07, p=0.000) internal and external (t=13.43, p=0.000) scope tests, suggesting that the level of wastewater treatment significantly influences households’ WTP. The following variables were statistically significant in the WTP model: income, age, education level, household size, gender, whether the household considers water scarcity as a priority issue, knowledge of the unsuitability of Infulene Valley water for vegetable irrigation, and whether the household is aware that the Infulene Valley is an important supplier of fresh vegetables to Maputo and Matola residents. The study concluded that the level of water treatment (high quality of treated wastewater) is a vi significant factor of preference over the alternative policy in wastewater treatment. The following recommendations derive from the study: policy makers should consider wastewater treatment planning and they should develop an irrigation water pricing system, as well as conservation practices to manage pollution problems at Infulene Valley. While this study provides an estimate of household values for irrigation water quality improvements in the Infulene Valley, is ultimately up to policy makers at the city and country levels to implement any changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:334752
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.334752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334752/files/Manjate_Scope_2018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.334752?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Obuobie, Emmanuel & Keraita, Bernard & Danso, George & Amoah, Philip & Cofie, Olufunke O. & Raschid-Sally, Liqa & Drechsel, Pay, 2006. "Irrigated urban vegetable production in Ghana: characteristics, benefits and risks," IWMI Books, International Water Management Institute, number 137958.
    2. Drechsel, Pay & Scott, C. A. & Raschid-Sally, Liqa & Redwood, M. & Bahri, Akissa, 2010. "Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risk in low-income countries," IWMI Books, Reports H042600, International Water Management Institute.
    3. Chien, Yu-Lan & Huang, Cliff J. & Shaw, Daigee, 2005. "A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 362-377, September.
    4. Drechsel, Pay & Scott, C. A. & Raschid-Sally, Liqa & Redwood, M. & Bahri, Akissa, 2010. "Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risk in low-income countries," IWMI Books, Reports H042759, International Water Management Institute.
    5. d'Arge, Ralph C. & Shogren, Jason F., 1989. "Okoboji experiment: Comparing non-market valuation techniques in an unusually well-defined market for water quality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 251-259, October.
    6. Edward Barbier & Ivar Strand, 1998. "Valuing Mangrove-Fishery Linkages – A Case Study of Campeche, Mexico," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(2), pages 151-166, September.
    7. Sato, Toshio & Qadir, Manzoor & Yamamoto, Sadahiro & Endo, Tsuneyoshi & Zahoor, Ahmad, 2013. "Global, regional, and country level need for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and use," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-13.
    8. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    9. Molden, David, 2007. "Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture: summary. In Russian," IWMI Books, Reports H041260, International Water Management Institute.
    10. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    11. 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.
    12. William D. Schulze & Ralph C. d'Arge & David S. Brookshire, 1981. "Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 151-172.
    13. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    14. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    15. Kadekodi, Gopal K., 2001. "Valuation of Natural Resources: What Have We Learnt from Indian Experience?," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 56(3), September.
    16. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    17. Namara, Regassa E. & Hanjra, Munir A. & Castillo, Gina E. & Ravnborg, Helle Munk & Smith, Lawrence & Van Koppen, Barbara, 2010. "Agricultural water management and poverty linkages," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 520-527, April.
    18. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
    19. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    20. Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. "Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-184, June.
    21. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    22. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    23. Drechsel, Pay & Scott, Christopher A. & Raschid-Sally, Liqa & Redwood, Mark & Bahri, Akissa (ed.), 2010. "Wastewater irrigation and health: assessing and mitigating risk in low-income countries," IWMI Books, International Water Management Institute, number 137591.
    24. Diamond, Peter, 1996. "Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 337-347, May.
    25. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    26. Whittington, Dale & Lauria, Donald T. & Mu, Xinming, 1991. "A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 179-198.
    27. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
    28. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.
    29. Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
    30. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1993. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521447928.
    31. Molden, David & Oweis, T. Y. & Pasquale, S. & Kijne, Jacob W. & Hanjra, M. A. & Bindraban, P. S. & Bouman, Bas A. M. & Cook, S. & Erenstein, O. & Farahani, H. & Hachum, A. & Hoogeveen, J. & Mahoo, Hen, 2007. "Pathways for increasing agricultural water productivity," Book Chapters,, International Water Management Institute.
    32. Richard D. Smith, 2000. "The Discrete-choice Willingness-to-pay Question Format in Health Economics:," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(2), pages 194-204, April.
    33. Mary Riddel & John Loomis, 1998. "Joint Estimation of Multiple CVM Scenarios under a Double Bounded Questioning Format," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 77-98, July.
    34. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    35. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    36. KyeongAe Choe & Dale Whittington & Donald T. Lauria, 1996. "The Economic Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Davao, Philippines," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 519-537.
    37. Molden, David, 2007. "Water for food, water for life: a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture," IWMI Books, Reports H040193, International Water Management Institute.
    38. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    39. Raschid-Sally, Liqa & Jayakody, Priyantha, 2008. "Drivers and characteristics of wastewater agriculture in developing countries: results from a global assessment," IWMI Research Reports H041686, International Water Management Institute.
    40. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman & Gregory K. Leonard, 1993. "Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences?," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, pages 41-89, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    41. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R., 2004. "Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 349-359, July.
    42. Hussain, I. & Raschid, L. & Hanjra, M. A. & Marikar, F. & van der Hoek, W., 2001. "A Framework for analyzing socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts of wastewater use in agriculture in developing countries," IWMI Working Papers H028996, International Water Management Institute.
    43. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, 2003. "The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 461-476, August.
    44. Thomas H. Stevens & Nichole E. DeCoteau & Cleve E. Willis, 1997. "Sensitivity of Contingent Valuation to Alternative Payment Schedules," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(1), pages 140-148.
    45. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2008. "Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 433-446, April.
    46. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 81, pages 752-767, Elsevier.
    47. Carson, Richard T & Wilks, Leanne & Imber, David, 1994. "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 727-749, Supplemen.
    48. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    49. Qadir, M. & Wichelns, D. & Raschid-Sally, L. & McCornick, P.G. & Drechsel, P. & Bahri, A. & Minhas, P.S., 2010. "The challenges of wastewater irrigation in developing countries," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 561-568, April.
    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. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    4. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    5. Sato, Toshio & Qadir, Manzoor & Yamamoto, Sadahiro & Endo, Tsuneyoshi & Zahoor, Ahmad, 2013. "Global, regional, and country level need for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and use," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-13.
    6. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    7. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    8. Mvangeli Dlamini, Nqobizwe, 2015. "Households' Water Use Demand and Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Services: A Case Study of Semi-Urban Areas in the Lubombo and Lowveld Regions of Swaziland," Research Theses 243464, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    9. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    10. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    11. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    13. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    14. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    15. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
    17. Scheierling, S. M., 2010. "Improving wastewater use in agriculture: an emerging priority," IWMI Working Papers H043153, International Water Management Institute.
    18. 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.
    19. Grösche, Peter & Schröder, Carsten, 2011. "Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 363-370, March.
    20. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.

    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:ags:cmpart:334752. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agriculturaleconomics.net .

    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.