Abstract
This study uses a 2018 stated preference survey to elicit a willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce the cancer morbidity and mortality risk from arsenic exposure through drinking water. Respondents who use a public water supply are willing to pay $35.43 per month for the risk reduction associated with lowering the maximum allowable level of arsenic in drinking water from 10 to a hypothetical level of 3 ppb; households on private wells are willing to pay $29.19. Respondents from households with children were willing to pay significantly more than respondents from households without children. We derive values of a statistical life (VSL) of $4.61 million and $3.48 million per household member, respectively, in households using municipal or well water. Shortly after the initial release of these findings, New Hampshire became the second state to set a maximum allowable level for arsenic below the national limit of 10 ppb.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Bellinger (2012) estimates that each loss of one IQ point decreases average lifetime earnings capacity by about €12,000 or $18,000 US in 2008 dollars (adjusting by the CPI, this is equivalent to in US$21,565).
The term community water system allows for the possibility that some respondents obtain water from a shared community well rather than a municipal system or private (single household) well. Community wells that serve at least 25 people are subject to standards regarding water testing and contaminant levels that are similar to the standards faced by municipal systems.
No end to the monthly payments was either specified or assumed.
The median bid amount ($20) was chosen to roughly match a 5-year repayment given a preliminary cost estimate per household of lowering the maximum allowable level of arsenic to 3 ppb.
47.6% of respondents report drinking bottled water at least “a couple of times per week”.
These risk values we used in constructing the risk ladder were used in our survey.
VSL is computed as annual WTP divided by the annual risk reduction implied by the 70-year risk reduction. This formulation means that we do not need to specify a discount factor. If respondents had instead discounted the monthly payments and the future risks, we would need to specify (perhaps different) discount rates for money and risks.
An important test for internal validity is to verify that WTP increases with income; the parameter estimate on income is positive and significant. Mean household income in our sample is $63,290. Using the parameter estimate for HH Income from Model 1 in Table 2, we find that for the average respondent, a 10% increase in income (about $6239) would lead to an increase in WTP of $1.28 per month.
We have also experimented with partitioning the data by household size and estimating different WTP by subsample. Small subsamples make it difficult to discern clear patterns in this way.
References
Abt Associates (2000) Proposed arsenic in drinking water rule regulatory impact analysis. EPA 815-R-00-013: developed for Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Abt Associates Inc. Bethesda, MD
Adamowicz Wiktor, Dupont Diane, Krupnick Alan, Zhang Jing (2011) Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reduction in municipal drinking water: an analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods. J Environ Econ Manag 61(2):213–226
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1998) Toxicological profile for arsenic (Draft). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC
Alberini A (1995) Efficiency vs. bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: Bivariate and interval-data models. J Environ Econ Manag 29:169–180
Alberini A, Kahn J (2006) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton
Alberini A, Scasny M (2018) The benefits of avoiding cancer (or dying from cancer): evidence from a four-country study. J Health Econ 57:249–262
Ayotte JosephD, Medalie Laura, Qi SharonL, Backer LorraineC, Nolan BernardT (2017) Estimating the high-arsenic domestic-well population in the conterminous United States. Environ Sci Technol 51(21):12443–12454. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02881
Alberini A, Scasny M (2011) Context and the VSL: evidence from a stated preference study in Italy and the Czech Republic. Environ Resour Econ 49:511–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9444-8
Bellinger DC (2012) A strategy for comparing the contributions of environmental chemicals and other risk factors to neurodevelopment of children. Environ Health Perspect 120:501–507
Braden J, Kolstad C (1991) Measuring the demand for environmental quality. North-Holland, New York
Cameron TA (2014) Valuing morbidity in environmental benefit-cost analysis. Annu Rev Resour Econ 6:249–272
Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manag 27:218–234
Cameron TA, DeShazo JR (2013) Demand for health risk reductions. J Environ Econ Manag 65:87–109
D’Ippoliti C, Santelli E, DeSario M, et al. (2015) Arsenic in drinking water and mortality for cancer and chronic diseases in Central Italy, 1990–2010. PLoS ONE. journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138182
Grandjean P, Philip JL (2014) Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet. 13:330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3
Grazhdani D (2015) Contingent valuation of residents’ attitudes and willingness-to-pay for non-point source pollution control: a case study in AL-Prespa, Southeastern Albania. Environ Manag 56(1):81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0480-6
Haab T, McConnell K (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources. Edward Elgar, Northhampton
Hamadani JD, Tofail F, Nermell B, Gardner R, Shiraji S, Bottai M, Arifeen SE, Huda SN, Vahter M (2011) Critical windows of exposure for arsenic-associated impairment of cognitive function in pre-school girls and boys: a population-based cohort study. Int J Epidemiol 40:1593–1604
Ahmed Hamed, Madani Kaveh, Holle BetsyVon, Wright James, Milon J, Bossick. Matthew (2016) How much are Floridians willing to pay for protecting sea turtles from sea level rise? Environ Manag 57(1):176–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0590-1
Hammitt JK, Haninger K (2010) Valuing fatal risks to children and adults: effects of disease, latency, and risk aversion. J Risk Uncertain 40:57–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-009-9086-9
Hanemann Michael, Loomis John, Kanninen Barbara (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73(no. 4):1255–1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
Hanley N, Shaw D, Wright R (2003) The new economics of outdoor recreation. Edward Elgar, Northhampton
Jakus PM, Shaw WD, Nguyen TN, Walker M (2009) Risk perceptions of arsenic in tap water and consumption of bottled water, Water Resour Res 45:W05405. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007427
Kalisa T, Riddel M, Shaw WD (2016) Willingness to pay to avoid arsenic-related risks: a special regressor approach. J Environ Econ Policy 5(2):143–162
Lipkus IM, Hollands JG (1999) The visual communication of risk. JNCI Monogr 1999(25):149–163. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024191
Loomis John, McTernan James (2014) Economic value of instream flow for non-commercial whitewater boating using recreation demand and contingent valuation methods. Environ Manag 53(3):510–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0232-z
National Research Council (1999) Arsenic in drinking water. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Shaw WD, Jakus PM, Riddel M (2012) Perceived arsenic‐related mortality risks for smokers and non‐smokers. Contemp Econ Policy 30(3):417–429
Tsai SM, Wang TN, Ko YC (1999) Mortality for certain diseases in areas with high levels of arsenic in drinking water. Arch Environ Health 54(3):186–193
Tsuji JS, Michael RG, Perez V, Chang ET (2015) Low-level arsenic exposure and developmental neurotoxicity in children: A systematic review and risk assessment. Toxicology 337:91–107
US EPA (2000a) Arsenic in drinking water rule economic analysis. EPA 815-R-00-026. US EPA. Washington, DC
US EPA (2000b) SAB report from the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) on EPA’s White Paper, “Valuing the benefits of fatal cancer risk reduction”. EPA-SAB-EEAC–00–013. US EPA. Washington, DC
Viscusi WK, Huber J, Bell J (2014) Assessing whether there is a cancer premium for the value of a statistical life. Health Econ 23(4):384–396
Wasserman GA, Liu X, Lolacono NJ, et al. (2014) A cross-sectional study of Well water arsenic and child IQ in Maine school children. Environ Health 13:23, http://www.ehjournal.net/content/13/1/23
Wasserman GA, Liu X, Parvez F, et al. (2007) Water arsenic exposure and intellectual function in 6-year-old children in Araihazar, Bangladesh. Environ Health Perspect 115:285–289
Welch AH, Westjohn DB, Helsel DR, Wanty RB (2000) Arsenic in ground water of the United States-occurrence and geochemistry. Ground Water 38(no. 4):589–604
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank participants at the Western Economic Association meetings for helpful comments and suggestions on this work and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments in revising our final manuscript. Financial support for this research is provided by the NHDES, the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station and the NHDES. This is scientific contribution number 2832. This work was supported by Hatch Multistate Project NE 1749. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the view of the funding agency. All remaining errors are our own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Survey Details
Appendix: Survey Details
Introduction
Arsenic in drinking water is a substantial public health issue in New Hampshire, according to the NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). Arsenic occurs naturally in groundwater in New Hampshire, and it has the potential to increase the risk of a wide range of health effects, including bladder and lung cancer. The current regulatory limit of 10 parts per billion (ppb) was chosen by the US EPA in 2000 as a reasonable level at which to balance the risk of harmful health effects with the cost of treating water to remove arsenic in public water systems. A good deal of scientific research has been done since then, which has only served to increase concern about harmful health effects in New Hampshire. In 2018, the NH Legislature directed NHDES to review the federal 10 ppb standard and to determine whether NH should establish a lower level, considering both the benefits and the costs to public water system and their customers. Our research team from the University of New Hampshire is conducting a survey to gather information on perceptions and preferences related to risks associated with arsenic in residential drinking water in New Hampshire. This survey is funded by the NHDES. In order to participate in this survey, you must be at least 18 years old. This survey will take ~10–15 min to complete. Survey participation is voluntary and you will not receive any compensation for participating. There are no potential risks for participating in this study. We seek to maintain the anonymity of all data and records associated with your participation in this research. We will report the data in aggregate, assessing trends in individual preferences and perceptions related to arsenic in drinking water. The results may be used in reports, presentations, and publications. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject you can contact Melissa McGee at UNH Research Integrity Services at 603-862-2005 or melissa.mcgee@unh.edu. If you have questions about this research project or would like more information, you may contact project leader John Halstead, Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, University of New Hampshire, at 603-862-3914 or john.halstead@unh.edu.
In order for you to help us with this study, you must be at least 18 years old. Are you at least 18 years old?
Yes
No
Do you consume at least 50% of your drinking water from the tap?
Yes
No
How do you receive tap water in your home?
Public or community water supply (incl. community well)
Private well
Self-Protection and Perceptions of Safety of Tap Water
This portion of the survey will focus on options for the provision of cleaner and safer drinking water. First, would like some information about the water you drink.
Apart from receiving water from the municipal water utility, what are the other sources of your drinking water? Check all that apply.
Purchased bottle water
Water delivery service
Natural well
Other (please specify) ______________________
I don’t know
What is the source of your tap water? (Select all)
Groundwater (e.g. underground water source)
Surface water (e.g. river of lake)
I don’t know
How often do you personally drink bottled water that you have purchased?
Never or rarely (once per year)
Occasionally (a couple of times per year)
Sometimes (a couple of times per month)
Frequently (a couple of times per week)
Once per day
Several times per day
How much money do you estimate that your household spends on purchased drinking water (i.e. bottled water) per month?
______________________
When purchasing drinking water, you do so mostly because of
convenience.
taste.
health concerns about tap water.
Do you use a home water filtration system of any kind?
Yes
No
How much did your water filtration system cost to purchase? ____________
Do you use a container style water filter (e.g. a Brita)?
Yes
No
We would like to get a sense of the percentage of the water you consume from different sources. In the table below, please fill in your best guess of the percentage of water you personally consume from the different sources identified below. (The total from all sources should add to 100%)
Water direct from tap without any home filtering or treating: _______
Home filtered or treated tap water: _______
Purchased drinking water (e.g. bottled water): _______
We would like to know whether you have any health concerns about drinking your tap water. Please choose the one statement that best reflects your personal opinion.
No health concerns. I feel that tap water does not pose a problem for my personal or my family’s health.
Minor health concerns. I feel that drinking tap water may pose a minor problem for my personal or my family’s health.
Moderate health concern. I feel that drinking tap water may pose a moderate problem for my health or my family’s health.
Serious health concern. I feel that drinking tap water may pose a serious problem for my health or my family’s health.
Health Effects of Arsenic Exposure in Tap Water
One of the benefits of increasing the drinking water standard (i.e., lowering the maximum allowable level of arsenic) in public water systems in New Hampshire is the reduction in the chance of contracting and dying from diseases like lung and bladder cancer. In particular, lowering the level of arsenic in drinking water from 10 to 3 ppb lowers the risk of contracting lung and bladder cancer by 70% and lowers the risk of dying from those same cancers by 50%. To put this in perspective, we have included a visual representation of this risk change in relation to other commonly understood risks. These risks are displayed as a the prevalence of the risk out of 10,000 people. To get a sense of these chances, consider that the town of Conway, NH, has a population of about 10,000 residents. Please review this graphic carefully before moving on to the next section.
Valuation of Health Risk Reductions from Increased Water Quality
We would like to know your opinions about the management of tap water quality in New Hampshire. The following section will ask a series of questions on your WTP to increase drinking water quality in New Hampshire, and thus lower your chances of contracting lung and bladder cancer. Please note, we know that responses from surveys are often not a reliable indication of how people will actually choose. In surveys, some people ignore the sacrifices they would need to make if their choice actually meant they would have less money to spend. We would like you to respond to the following questions as if this were a real choice—imagine that you actually have to dig into your pocket and pay the additional charges on your water bill if the majority agreed with your choice. Note that by paying more on your water bill you would have less money to spend on other things.
Assume for a moment that the current level of arsenic in your drinking water is 10 ppb. This is associated with a 67 out of 10,000 chance of eventually getting bladder or lung cancer and a 34 out of 10,000 chance of dying from that cancer due to the arsenic by age 70. What if a water treatment system could be used to reduce the level of arsenic in your water to 3 ppb? This would lower the risk of eventually getting bladder or lung cancer to 20 out of 10,000 and dying from bladder or lung cancer to 10 out of 10,000. Again, this represents a 70% reduction in your chances of getting lung or bladder cancer and a 50% reduction in your chances of dying from that cancer. Would you be willing to pay $___ per month for use of this water filtration system, which would lower the level of arsenic in your drinking water from 10 to 3 ppb?
Yes
No
Given your response to the question above, would you be willing to pay $___ per month for use of this water filtration system, which would lower the level of arsenic in your drinking water from 10 to 3 ppb?
Yes
No
Respondent Demographic Information
What is your gender?
Male
Female
What is your current age? __________
How many people live in your household, including yourself?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
How many children under the age of 18 live in your household?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 or more
What is the highest level of schooling you have completed?
Some high school
High school
Some college
Associates
Bachelors
Graduate/Professional
What is your current employment status?
Student
Retired
Full time
Part time
Self-employed
Unemployed
What is your approximate annual household income from all sources, before taxes?
less than $15,000
$15,000–$29,999
$30,000–$44,999
$45,000–$59,999
$60,000–$74,999
$75,000–$89,999
more than $90,000
What is your household zip code? _________
Do you have any of the following long-term health conditions?
Food allergies
Any other allergies (Please specify) ______________________
Asthma
Arthritis or rheumatism
Back problems, excluding arthritis
High blood pressure
Migraine headaches
Chronic bronchitis or emphysema
Sinusitis
Diabetes
Epilepsy
Heart Disease
Cancer (Please specify type) ______________________
Stomach or intestinal ulcers
Effects of stroke
Any other long-term condition that has been diagnosed by a health professional (Please specify) ______________________
In your opinion, how do you think the safety of tap water should be paid for? Check all that apply.
Increase federal, state, or municipal taxes
Increase fees to tap water users
Charge polluters of the water
Other (please specify) ___________
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lemos, S., Halstead, J.M., Mohr, R.D. et al. Valuing the Cancer Mortality Risk Reduction from Lowering the Arsenic Maximum Contaminant Level in New Hampshire Municipal Water Supplies. Environmental Management 65, 725–736 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01288-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01288-3