Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 173–198 | Cite as

The Value of Household Water Service Quality in Lahore, Pakistan

Article

Abstract

Most existing literature focuses on the benefits of establishing basic drinking water access for unserved populations, the extensive water supply margin. In contrast, this article examines the intensive margin—the benefits of improving water service to under-served households, a growing population in developing country cities. We use contingent valuation to estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for improved piped water quality and reductions in supply interruptions among a sample of 193 households in Lahore, Pakistan. The distribution of WTP is described using parametric and non-parametric models. Results indicate that households in Lahore are willing to pay about $7.50 to $9 per month for piped water supply that is clean and drinkable directly from the tap—comparable to the monthly cost of in-home water treatment, and about three to four times the average monthly water bill for sample households using piped water. Estimates of WTP for reducing supply interruptions are both smaller and more difficult to interpret, since a significant fraction of the estimated WTP distribution for supply improvements is negative. All of our WTP estimates are well below 4% of monthly household income, the World Bank’s benchmark upper bound for affordable water service.

Keywords

Contingent valuation Drinking water quality Water demand Willingness to pay 

JEL Classification

Q21 Q25 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow KJ, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1995) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, January 11, 1993, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. Silver Spring, MDGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayer M, Brunk HD, Ewing GM, Reid WT, Silverman E (1955) An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information. Ann Math Stat 26: 641–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aziz JA (2005) Management of source and drinking-water quality in Pakistan. East Mediterr Health J 11: 1087–1098Google Scholar
  4. Baisa B, Davis L, Salant S, Wilcox W (2010) The welfare costs of unreliable water service. J Devel Econ 92: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behrman JR, Wolfe BL (1987) How does Mother’s schooling affect family health, nutrition, medical care usage, and household sanitation?. J Econom 36: 185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohara AK, Kerkvliet J, Berrens RP (2001) Addressing negative willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 20: 173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manag 15: 355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron TA, James MD (1987) Efficient estimation methods for use with “closed-ended” contingent valuation survey data. Rev Econ Stat 69: 269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson RT, Flores NE, Martin KM, Wright JL (1996) Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ 72: 80–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp R, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK (1994) Prospective interim lost use value due to DDT and PCB contamination in the Southern California Bight. NOAA Contract No. 50-DGNC-1-00007Google Scholar
  11. Cutler D, Miller G (2005) The role of public health improvements in health advances: the twentieth-century United States. Demography 42: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. J Econ Perspect 8: 45–64Google Scholar
  13. Esrey SA, Potash JB, Roberts L, Shiff C (1991) Effects of improved water supply and sanitation on ascariasis, diarrhoea, dracunculiasis, hookworm infection, schistosomiasis, and trachoma. Bull World Health Org 69: 609–621Google Scholar
  14. Falkenmark M, Rockstrom J (2005) Balancing water for humans and nature—the new approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan, SterlingGoogle Scholar
  15. Fujita Y, Fujii A, Furukawa S, Ogawa T (2005) Estimation of willingness-to-Pay for water and sanitation services through contingent valuation method: a case study in Iquitos city, The Republic of Peru. Japan Bank Int Coop Inst Rev 11: 59–87Google Scholar
  16. Galiani S, Gertler P, Schargrodsky E (2005) Water for life: the impact of the privatization of water services on child mortality. J Polit Econ 113: 83–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Distribution-free models for contingent valuation. In: Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-market Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Haab TC, McConnell KE (1998) Referendum models and economic values: theoretical, intuitive and practical bounds on willingness to pay. Land Econ 74: 216–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haab TC, McConnell KE (1997) Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: Alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manag 32: 251–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66: 332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8: 19–43Google Scholar
  22. Hensher D, Shore N, Train K (2005) Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes. Environ Resour Econ 32: 509–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jalan J, Ravallion M (2003) Does piped water reduce diarrhea for children in rural India?. J Econom 112: 153–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahlown MA, Aslam Tahir M, Rasheed H (2007) Fifth water quality monitoring report, 2005–2006. Islamabad: Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, Ministry of Science and Technology, Publication No. 133-2007Google Scholar
  25. Kashf Foundation (2006), Growing Opportunities for the Unbanked: Annual Report 2006, Lahore, Pakistan. Available at: www.kashf.org
  26. Kremer M, Leino J, Miguel E, Peterson Zwane A (2007) Spring cleaning: a randomized evaluation of source water quality improvement. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  27. Kriström B (1990) A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ 66: 135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lahore City Government (2007) Geography Profile. available at: http://lahore.gov.pk/profile/geography.htm#. Accessed 18 October 2007
  29. Lahore Development Authority, Water and Sanitation Agency : (2007) Performance Benchmarking Indicators. Mimeo, LahoreGoogle Scholar
  30. Lavy V, Strauss J, Thomas D, de Vreyer P (1996) Quality of health care, survival and health outcomes in Ghana. J Health Econ 15: 333–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee L, Rosenzweig MR, Pitt MM (1997) The effects of improved nutrition, sanitation, and water quality on child health in high-mortality populations. J Econom 77: 209–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McIntosh, AC, Yñiguez, CE (eds) (1997) Second water utilities data book. Asian Development Bank, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  33. Merrick TW (1985) The effect of piped water on early childhood mortality in urban Brazil, 1970 to 1976. Demography 22: 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. Olmstead SM (2003) Water supply and poor communities: what’s price got to do with it?. Environment 45: 22–35Google Scholar
  36. Pattanayak SK, van den Berg C, Yang J-C, Van Houtven G (2006) The use of willingness to pay experiments: estimating demand for piped water connections in Sri Lanka. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3818Google Scholar
  37. Soares RR (2007) Health and the evolution of welfare across Brazilian municipalities. J Dev Econ 84: 590–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turnbull B (1976) The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J Roy Stat Soc 38: 290–295Google Scholar
  39. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2003) Water for People, Water for Life: The United Nations World Water Development Report. Berghahn Books, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  40. Werner M (1999) Allowing for zeros in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation models. J Bus Econ Stat 17: 479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Westfall, MS, de Villa, VA (eds) (2001) Cities data book: urban indicators for managing cities. Asian Development Bank, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  42. Whittington D, Pattanayak SK, Yang J-C, Bal Kumar KC (2002) Household demand for improved piped water services: evidence from Kathmandu, Nepal. Water Policy 4: 531–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whittington D, Lauria DT, Mu X (1991) A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria. World Dev 19: 179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whittington D, Briscoe J, Mu X, Barron W (1990a) Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the use of contingent valuation surveys in Southern Haiti. Econ Dev Cult Change 38: 293–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Whittington D, Mu X, Roche R (1990b) Calculating the value of time spent collecting water: some estimates for Ukunda, Kenya. World Dev 18: 269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. World Bank (2002) Water—the Essence of Life. Development News 17 MayGoogle Scholar
  47. World Bank Water Demand Research Team: (1993) The demand for water in rural areas: determinants and policy implications. World Bank Res Obs 8: 47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. World Resources Institute (2007) Water Resources and Freshwater Ecosystems—Pakistan. Earth Trends Country Profiles, available at: http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/wat_cou_586.pdf. Accessed 18 October
  49. Young RA (2005) Determining the economic value of water—concepts and methods. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations