An Economic Valuation of Groundwater Protection

  • Vo Thanh Danh


Groundwater in the Mekong Delta is facing the pollution, and it needs to be protected. Applying the contingent valuation method, the mean willingness-to-pay estimate by probit model was 8.86 USD per household per year. Groundwater could be an inferior good in the Delta with the negative income effect found in the demanding for clean groundwater. There were eight statistically significant variables, including both exogenous and endogenous, related to a respondent’s WTP response, while there were only four statistically significantly exogenous variables affecting the maximum offer price a respondent voted for in the OLS model. Respondent’s gender and groundwater-related health risk consideration were factors sensitively affecting the WTP values. Household income had a positive effect on the probability of demanding for groundwater protection.


Groundwater Pollution Willingness to pay Contingent valuation method 


  1. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jone-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroğlu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Department for Transport. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyle KJ, Poe GL, Bergstrom JC (1994) What do we know about groundwater values? Preliminary implications from a meta-analysis of contingent-valuation studies. Am J Agric Econ 76(5):6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carson R, Groves T, Machina M (1999) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. In: 9th annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE). Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  4. Caudill J.D, Hoehn J.P (1992) The economic valuation of groundwater pollution policies: the role of subjective risk perceptions. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. 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(4):519–537. Scholar
  6. Clemons R, Collins AR, Green K (1995) Contingent valuation of protecting groundwater quality by a wellhead protection program. Division of Resource Management, West Virginia University, Morgantown, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Bishop RC, Arrow KJ (1986) Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Littlefield, TotowaGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards SF (1988) Option prices for groundwater protection. J Environ Econ Manag 15(4):475–487. Scholar
  9. Goffe PH (1995) The benefits of improvements in coastal water quality: a contingent approach. J Environ ManagGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanemann MW, Loomis J, Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73(4):1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jordan JL, Elnagheeb AH (1993) Willingness to pay for improvements in drinking water quality. Water Resour Res 29(Feb.):237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McClelland GH, Schulze WD, Lazo JK, Waldman DW, Doyle JK, Elliott SR, Irwin FR (1992) Methods for measuring non-use values: a contingent valuation study of ground water clean-up. Final Report, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cooperative Agreement #CR-815183, p 1992Google Scholar
  13. Nam PK, Son TVH (2005) Household demand for improved ware services in Ho Chi Minh City: a comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates. The Economy and Environment Program for South East Asia (EEPSEA), SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  14. Phuong DM, Gopalakrishnan C (2003) An application of the contingent valuation method to estimate the loss of value of water resources due to pesticide contamination: the case of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Int J Water Resour Dev 19(4):617–633. Scholar
  15. Poe GL (1993) Information, risk perceptions and contingent values: the case of nitrates in groundwater. University of Wisconsin-Madison, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  16. Powell JR, Allee D, McClintok C (1994) Groundwater protection benefits and local community planning: impact of contingent valuation information. Am J Agric Econ 76:1078–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quyen TTH (2005) Status-quo of management and uses of groundwater in Can Tho City. Can Tho University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Schultz SD, Luloff AE (1990) The threat of nonresponse bias to survey research. J Commun Dev Soc 21(2):11Google Scholar
  19. Sun HS, Bergstrom JC, Dorfman JH (1992) Estimating the benefits of groundwater contamination control. South J Agric Econ 24:63–71Google Scholar
  20. Whittington D, Lauria DT, Wright A, Choe KE, Hughes J, Swarna V (1993) Household demand for improved sanitation services in Kumasi, Ghana: a contingent valuation study. Water Resour Res 29:1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Whittington D, Pattanayak SK, Yang JC, Kumar KC (2002) Household demand for improved piped water services: evidence from Kathmandu, Nepal. Water Policy 4:531CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vo Thanh Danh
    • 1
  1. 1.EAAERECan Tho UniversityCan Tho CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations