Advertisement

Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 807–818 | Cite as

Is willingness to pay for freshwater quality improvement in Pakistan affected by payment vehicle? Donations, mandatory government payments, or donations to NGO’s

  • Syed A. Shah
  • Dana L. K. Hoag
  • John Loomis
Research Article

Abstract

This study examines the effect of payment vehicle and managing agency on household’s stated willingness to pay (WTP) for freshwater quality improvement in Pakistan’s Swat River valley. Contingent valuation questions scenarios were designed based on three different payment mechanisms; a mandatory payment to government, a donation to government and a donation to a local non-government organization (NGO). Results show that zero WTP response rate is lower significantly for donation to a local NGO compared to mandatory and voluntary payments to government. Household’s annual donation to a local NGO is $2.8, which is almost double to mandatory and voluntary payments to government. Interviews indicate that this difference might be due to households’ lack of trust of the government programs or fear of corruption, or might be a strategic response to overstate actual WTP when asked about donations to an NGO. The implications for contingent valuation researchers looking to value WTP in poverty dominated areas are that a donation to a local NGO can be used as one payment vehicle to obtain an upper bound on WTP and a mandatory payment to the government can be used as a lower bound.

Keywords

Contingent valuation method Willingness to pay Voluntary payment Mandatory payment Managing agency Strategic behavior Swat valley Pakistan 

References

  1. Alam K (2006) Valuing the environment in developing countries: problems and potentials. Asia Pac J Environ Dev 13(1):27–44Google Scholar
  2. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leaner EE, Radner E, Schuman RH (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg 58(10):4601–4614Google Scholar
  3. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manag 17(3):230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carson RT (1997) Contingent valuation: theoretical advances and empirical tests since the NOAA panel. Am J Agric Econ 79(5):1501–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. Handb Environ Econ 2:821–936Google Scholar
  6. Champ PA, Flores NE, Brown TC, Chivers J (2002) Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Econ 78(4):591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choe KA, Whittington D, Lauria DT (1996) The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Econ 72:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8(4):45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Echessah PN, Swallow BM, Kamara DW, Curry JJ (1997) Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya. World Dev 25(2):239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garrod, G., & Willis, K. G. (1999). Economic valuation of the environment.Books Google Scholar
  11. Haab TC, Interis MG, Petrolia DR, Whitehead JC (2013) From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “dubious to hopeless” critique of contingent valuation. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 35(4):593–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hausman J (1993) Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North-Holland, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hung LT, Loomis JB, Thinh VT (2007) Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context. J Int Dev 19(2):173–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ivehammar P (2009) The payment vehicle used in CV studies of environmental goods does matter. J Agric Resour Econ, pp 450–463Google Scholar
  15. Khan AW, Jehan B, Usman M (2003) The River Swat–experience of River Swat conservation project. A Publication of Environmental Protection Society Swat, PakistanGoogle Scholar
  16. Loomis J, Lockwood M, DeLacy T (1993) Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. J Environ Econ Manag 25(1):45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33(1):103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Nafees M, Jan MR, Khan H, Ali A (2008) Status of soil texture and required associated soil conservation measure of River Swat catchments area, NWFP, Pakistan. Sarhad J Agric 24(2):251–259Google Scholar
  20. Shah SA (2014) Valuation of freshwater resources and sustainable management in poverty dominated areas. PhD Dissertation, Colorado State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  21. Shah SA, Hoag DL, Davies S (2015) Household preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for freshwater quality improvement in Pakistan’s Swat River Valley. Environ Dev Sustain 18(4):1081–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shyamsundar P, Kramer RA (1996) Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. J Environ Econ Manag 31(2):129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Whittington D (2002) Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environ Resource Econ 22(1–2):323–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Whittington D, Lauria DT, Mu XM (1991) A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria. World Dev 19(2/3):179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wiser RH (2007) Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol Econ 62(3):419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhongmin X, Loomis J, Zhiqiang Z, Hamamura K (2006) Evaluating the performance of different willingness to pay question formats for valuing environmental restoration in rural China. Environ Dev Econ 11(05):585–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies and Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsKPK Agricultural University PeshawarPeshawarPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsColorado State University Fort CollinsFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations