Water Resources Management

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 619–627 | Cite as

Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Tap Water Supply Service in Urban Areas: The Case of Korea



This paper attempts to measure the economic benefits of tap water supply services in some urban areas of Korea. According to micro-economic theory, the economic benefit of water consumed is the sum of the actual water price and the additional willingness to pay (WTP) for the consumption. We apply the dichotomous choice contingent valuation method to assess the additional WTP using specific cases of four cities located in the metropolitan area of Korea. Both parametric and non-parametric approaches to obtaining the mean WTP estimates are used. The results show that the mean additional WTP for the tap water supply service is estimated to be KRW 163.38 (USD 0.13) and KRW 223.89 (USD 0.18) per m3 using parametric and non-parametric approaches, respectively. Given that the price of tap water is 641.66 per m3, the residents’ economic benefits that ensue from the tap water supply service are computed as KRW 805.04 (USD 0.63) and KRW 865.55 (USD 0.68) per m3, respectively. This information can be beneficially utilized in conducting an economic feasibility study for a new project related to tap water supply service.


Tap water supply service Contingent valuation Willingness to pay Benefit 


  1. Al-Ghuraiz Y, Enshassi A (2005) Ability and willingness to pay for water supply service in the Gaza Strip. Build Environ 40:1093–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58:4601–4614Google Scholar
  3. Atkins JP, Burdon D, Allen JH (2007) An application of contingent valuation and decision tree analysis to water quality improvements. Mar Pollut Bull 55:591–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Jones AP, Kerr GN (2001) bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resour Energy Econ 23:191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boman M, Bostedt G, Kristöm B (1999) Obtaining welfare bounds in discrete-response valuation studies: a non-parametric approach. Land Econ 75:284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brox JA, Kumer RC, Stollery KR (2003) Estimating willingness to pay for improved water quality in the presence of nonresponse bias. Am J Agric Econ 85:414–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a ‘dichotomous choice with follow-up’ questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manag 27:218–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casey JF, Kahn JR, Rivas A (2006) Willingness to pay for improved water service in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Ecol Econ 58:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher A (1996) The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. In: Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR (eds) The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19–37Google Scholar
  11. Genius M, Hatzaki E, Kouromichelaki E, Kouvakis G, Nikiforaki S, Tsagarakis P (2008) Evaluating consumers’ willingness to pay for improved potable water quality and quantity. Water Resour Manag 22:1825–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanemann WM (1989) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses: reply. Am J Agric Econ 71:1057–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplowitz MD, Lupi F, Arreola O (2012) Local markets for payments for environmental services: can small rural communities self-finance watershed protection? Water Resour Manag 26:3689–3704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kristöm B (1990) A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ 66:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agric Econ 76:689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ponce RD, Vásquez F, Stehr A, Debels P, Orihuela C (2011) Estimating the economic value of landscape losses due to flooding by hydropower plants in the Chilean Patagonia. Water Resour Manag 25:2449–2466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tentes G, Damigos D (2012) The lost value of groundwater: the case of Asopos river basin in Central Greece. Water Resour Manag 26:147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wei Y, Davidson B, Chen D, White R, Li B, Zhang J (2007) Can contingent valuation be used to measure the in situ value of groundwater on the North China Plain? Water Resour Manag 21:1735–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yoo SH (2007) Urban water consumption and regional economic growth: the case of Taejeon, Korea. Water Resour Manag 21(8):1353–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yoo SH, Chae KS (2001) Measuring the economic benefits of the ozone pollution control policy in Seoul: results of a contingent valuation survey. Urban Stud 38:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yoo SH, Yang CY (1999) Role of water utility in the Korean national economy. Int J Water Resour Dev 15(4):527–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yoo SH, Kwak SJ, Kim TY (2001) Assessing benefits from greenhouse gas emission reduction policy: a pilot case study of Korea. Int J Environ Pollut 15:553–567Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Graduate School of Energy & EnvironmentSeoul National University of Science and TechnologySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations