Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Value of Household Water Service Quality in Lahore, Pakistan

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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, MD

  • Ayer M, Brunk HD, Ewing GM, Reid WT, Silverman E (1955) An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information. Ann Math Stat 26: 641–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aziz JA (2005) Management of source and drinking-water quality in Pakistan. East Mediterr Health J 11: 1087–1098

    Google Scholar 

  • Baisa B, Davis L, Salant S, Wilcox W (2010) The welfare costs of unreliable water service. J Devel Econ 92: 1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrman JR, Wolfe BL (1987) How does Mother’s schooling affect family health, nutrition, medical care usage, and household sanitation?. J Econom 36: 185–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohara AK, Kerkvliet J, Berrens RP (2001) Addressing negative willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 20: 173–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 355–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA, James MD (1987) Efficient estimation methods for use with “closed-ended” contingent valuation survey data. Rev Econ Stat 69: 269–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 80–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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-1-00007

  • Cutler D, Miller G (2005) The role of public health improvements in health advances: the twentieth-century United States. Demography 42: 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. J Econ Perspect 8: 45–64

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 609–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkenmark M, Rockstrom J (2005) Balancing water for humans and nature—the new approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan, Sterling

  • 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: 59–87

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 83–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, UK

  • Haab TC, McConnell KE (1998) Referendum models and economic values: theoretical, intuitive and practical bounds on willingness to pay. Land Econ 74: 216–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haab TC, McConnell KE (1997) Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: Alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manag 32: 251–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66: 332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8: 19–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher D, Shore N, Train K (2005) Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes. Environ Resour Econ 32: 509–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalan J, Ravallion M (2003) Does piped water reduce diarrhea for children in rural India?. J Econom 112: 153–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 133-2007

  • Kashf Foundation (2006), Growing Opportunities for the Unbanked: Annual Report 2006, Lahore, Pakistan. Available at: www.kashf.org

  • Kremer M, Leino J, Miguel E, Peterson Zwane A (2007) Spring cleaning: a randomized evaluation of source water quality improvement. Working paper

  • Kriström B (1990) A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ 66: 135–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahore City Government (2007) Geography Profile. available at: http://lahore.gov.pk/profile/geography.htm#. Accessed 18 October 2007

  • Lahore Development Authority, Water and Sanitation Agency : (2007) Performance Benchmarking Indicators. Mimeo, Lahore

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavy V, Strauss J, Thomas D, de Vreyer P (1996) Quality of health care, survival and health outcomes in Ghana. J Health Econ 15: 333–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 209–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, AC, Yñiguez, CE (eds) (1997) Second water utilities data book. Asian Development Bank, Manila

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick TW (1985) The effect of piped water on early childhood mortality in urban Brazil, 1970 to 1976. Demography 22: 1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmstead SM (2003) Water supply and poor communities: what’s price got to do with it?. Environment 45: 22–35

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 3818

  • Soares RR (2007) Health and the evolution of welfare across Brazilian municipalities. J Dev Econ 84: 590–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull B (1976) The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J Roy Stat Soc 38: 290–295

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2003) Water for People, Water for Life: The United Nations World Water Development Report. Berghahn Books, Barcelona

  • Werner M (1999) Allowing for zeros in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation models. J Bus Econ Stat 17: 479–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westfall, MS, de Villa, VA (eds) (2001) Cities data book: urban indicators for managing cities. Asian Development Bank, Manila

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 531–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington D, Lauria DT, Mu X (1991) A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria. World Dev 19: 179–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 293–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington D, Mu X, Roche R (1990b) Calculating the value of time spent collecting water: some estimates for Ukunda, Kenya. World Dev 18: 269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2002) Water—the Essence of Life. Development News 17 May

  • World Bank Water Demand Research Team: (1993) The demand for water in rural areas: determinants and policy implications. World Bank Res Obs 8: 47–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Young RA (2005) Determining the economic value of water—concepts and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheila M. Olmstead.

Additional information

Akram is a doctoral student at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. Olmstead is a Fellow at Resources for the Future. We are grateful to the Career Development Office at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies for financial support, to the Kashf Foundation for support and assistance with survey implementation, and to Erin Mansur, Robert Mendelsohn, and seminar participants at Resources for the Future and the International Water Resource Economics Consortium for insight and comments. Two anonymous referees provided extensive comments that improved the quality of the manuscript. All remaining errors are our own.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Akram, A.A., Olmstead, S.M. The Value of Household Water Service Quality in Lahore, Pakistan. Environ Resource Econ 49, 173–198 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9429-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9429-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation