Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing Water Resources Under Conditions of Scarcity: On Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Improving Water Supply Infrastructure

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conservation and efficient management of water resources is an essential ingredient for achieving sustainable development. River basins in Southern Europe are suffering from high water stress, while leakages in some areas far surpass recommended levels. This study uses the contingent valuation method in order to assess willingness to pay (WTP) by consumers in the Guadalquivir River basin in Spain for improving urban water supply infrastructure and reducing leakages. On average, individuals would be willing to pay an extra charge on their water bill ranging from €8.23 to €9.65. In addition to the expected positive effect of income on WTP, respondents with negative perceptions of their drinking water quality as well as those most affected by the economic crisis have a lower WTP. Conversely, WTP is higher for men and respondents showing greater commitment to the environment. These results provide policymakers with information that might help them to improve water-pricing policies in a context of severe water scarcity, especially considering the principle of cost recovery introduced by the EU Water Framework Directive in pricing water services.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The full questionnaire is available on request.

References

  • AEAS, Asociación Española de Abastecimientos de Agua y Saneamiento (2014) XIII Encuesta de Suministro de Agua Potable y Saneamiento en España. Madrid

  • Akram AA, Olmstead SM (2011) The value of household water service quality in Lahore, Pakistan. Environ Resour Econ 49(2):173–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PP et al (1993) Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58:4602–4614

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartus T (2005) Estimation of marginal effects using margeff. Stata J 5:309–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilgic A (2010) Measuring willingness to pay to improve municipal water in southeast Anatolia, Turkey. Water Resour Res 46(12), W12545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop RC, Heberlein TA (1979) Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased? Am J Agric Econ 61:926–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calia P, Strazzera E (2001) A sample selection model for protest votes in contingent valuation analysis. Statistica 61:473–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT (1997) Contingent valuation: theoretical advances and empirical tests since the NOAA panel. Am J Agric Econ 79:1501–1507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT (2011) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, Northampton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • del Saz-Salazar S, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2009) The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: a comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Sci Total Environ 407:4574–4583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • del Saz-Salazar S, González-Gómez F, Guardiola J (2015) Willingness to pay to improve urban water supply: the case of Sucre, Bolivia. Water Policy 17(1):112–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann A, Preseindörfer P (2003) Green and greenback: the behavioural effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration Soc 15:441–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dziegielewska DA, Mendelshon R (2007) Does ‘No’ mean ‘No’? A protest methodology. Environ Resour Econ 38:71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC, European Commission (2012a) A blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources. Commission staff working document executive summary of the impact assessment accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. SWD (2012) 381 final

  • EC, European Commission (2012b) Report on the review of the European water scarcity and droughts policy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2012) 672 final

  • EC, European Community (2006) Water scarcity management in the context of Water Framework Directive. European Community, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA, European Environment Agency (2005) Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe. EEA Technical Report No 7/2005. Copenhagen, Denmark

  • EEA, European Environmental Agency (2013). Assessment of cost recovery through water pricing. EEA Technical Report No 16/2013. Copenhagen, Denmark

  • EEA, European Environmental Agency (2009) EEA signals 2009. Key environmental issues facing Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • EU, European Union (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Official Journal of the European Union, L 327, 22 December

  • FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization (2012) Aquastat, global information system on water and agriculture 2008–2012. www.fao.org/nr/water/aquast at/main/in-dex.stm. Access December 26, 2014

  • Fielding KS, Russell S, Spinks A et al (2012) Determinants of household water conservation: the role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resour Res 48(10), W10510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrote L, Iglesias A, Granados A et al (2015) Quantitative assessment of climate change vulnerability of irrigation demands in Mediterranean Europe. Water Resour Manag 29(2):325–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genius M, Hatzaki E, Kouromichelaki EM et al (2008) Evaluating consumers’ willingness to pay for improved potable water quality and quantity. Water Resour Manag 22(12):1825–1834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Gómez F, García-Rubio MA, Guardiola J (2011) Why is non-revenue water so high in so many cities? Int J Water Resour Dev 27(2):345–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Gómez F, Martínez-Espiñeira R, García-Valiñas MA, García-Rubio MA (2012) Explanatory factors of urban water leakage rates in Southern Spain. Util Policy 22(1):22–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GWI, Global Water Intelligence (2010) Global water market 2011. Meeting the world’s water and wastewater needs until 2016. Volume II: Europe and Africa. Media Analytics, Oxford

  • Haab TC (1999) Nonparticipation or misspecification? The impacts of nonparticipation on dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14:443–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton LC (1983) Saving water a causal model of household conservation. Sociol Perspect 26(4):355–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 67:332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM, Kanninen B (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 302–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Barbier EB (2009) Pricing nature. Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hole AR (2007) A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ, 16(8):827--840

  • INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2013). Encuestas sobre el suministro y saneamiento del agua 2008–2012. Madrid. http://www.ine.es/. Access December 25, 2014

  • Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33:251–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79:1013–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Espiñeira R, García-Valiñas MA, Nauges C (2014) Households’ pro-environmental habits and investments in water and energy consumption: determinants and relationships. J Environ Manag 133:174–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugabi J, Kayaga S (2010) Attitudinal and socio-demographic effects on willingness to pay for water services and actual payment behaviour. Urban Water J 7(5):287–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutikanga HE, Sharma SK, Vairavamoorthy K (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis: a strategic planning tool for water loss management. Water Resour Manag 25(14):3947–3969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nazif S, Karamouz M, Tabesh M et al (2010) Pressure management model for urban water distribution networks. Water Resour Manag 24(3):437–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) Greening household behaviour: the role of public policy. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen T, Klauer B, Manstetten R (2009) The environment as a challenge for governmental responsibility—The case of the European Water Framework Directive. Ecol Econ 68(7):2058–2065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poe GL, Vossler CA (2011) Consequentiality and contingent values: an emerging paradigm. In: Bennett J (ed) The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramajo-Hernández J, del Saz-Salazar S (2012) Estimating the non-market benefits of water quality improvement for a case study in Spain: a contingent valuation approach. Environ Sci Pol 22:47–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sáez-Fernández J, González-Gómez F, Picazo-Tadeo AJ (2011) Opportunity costs of ensuring sustainability of urban water services. Int J Water Resour Dev 27(4):693–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Söderberg M, Barton DN (2014) Marginal WTP and distance decay: the role of ‘protest’ and ‘true zero’ responses in the economic valuation of recreational water quality. Environ Resour Econ 59(3):389–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton J, Sturm R, Kunkel G (2008) Water loss control, 2onth edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tynan N, Kingdom B (2002) A water scoreboard: setting performance targets for water utilities. Public Policy for the Private Sector Note, 242. The World Bank, Washington DC

  • Unnerstall H (2007) The principle of full cost recovery in the EU-water framework directive—genesis and content. J Environ Law 19(1):29–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Xie J, Li H (2010) Water pricing with household surveys: a study of acceptability and willingness to pay in Chongqing, China. China Econ Rev 21(1):136–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC (2006) A practitioner’s primer on contingent valuation. In: Alberini A, Kahn J (eds) Contingent valuation handbook. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis RM, Stewart RA, Panuwatwanich K et al (2011) Quantifying the influence of environmental and water conservation attitudes on household end use water consumption. J Environ Manag 92(8):1996–2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Q, Chen Q, Ma J et al (2014) Water saving and energy reduction through pressure management in urban water distribution networks. Water Resour Manag 28(11):3715–3726

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (ECO2012-32189), the Regional Government of Valencia (PROMETEO II/2014/053), and the Regional Government of Andalusia (P11-SEJ-7039; P11-SEJ-7294).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Salvador del Saz-Salazar

  2. University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Miguel A. García-Rubio & Francisco González-Gómez

  3. University of Valencia and INTECO Joint Research Unit, Valencia, Spain

    Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo

Authors
  1. Salvador del Saz-Salazar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel A. García-Rubio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco González-Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco González-Gómez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

del Saz-Salazar, S., García-Rubio, M.A., González-Gómez, F. et al. Managing Water Resources Under Conditions of Scarcity: On Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Improving Water Supply Infrastructure. Water Resour Manage 30, 1723–1738 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1247-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1247-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation