Marginal Willingness to Pay for Public Investment Under Urban Environmental Risk: The Case of Municipal Water Use

  • Kiyoko HagiharaEmail author
  • Chisato Asahi
  • Yoshimi Hagihara
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 4)


Marginal willingness to pay for public investment under urban environmental risk is considered in this chapter. In particular, we show a model that takes into account a bounded rationality on the ability of risk perception, information situation, and people’s threshold acceptance of risk. Then, as one case study of urban environmental risk, the evaluation of risk in municipal water use is shown. In order to investigate the information situation and risk perception of people, a survey is conducted using questionnaires. The survey reveals that risk awareness is a factor in drinking water, and that people change their choice based on risk information. Then, the effects of information on risk and public investment are considered. From some numerical examples, marginal willingness to pay is found to be low in the case of high risk, because of consumers’ self-defensive activities. In other words, marginal willingness to pay for public investment is high when there is no or little averting behaviour. Moreover, it is shown that consumers’ perception of risk is largely dependent on information on risk, countermeasures taken by public authorities, and overconfidence in private averting goods.


Marginal willingness to pay Environmental risk Municipalwateruse Public investment Bounded rationality 



This paper has originally presented at the second DPRI-IIASA International Symposium on Integrated Disaster Risk Management : Megacity Vulnerability and Resilience, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, July 2002. We have benefited from discussion with especially Professor Norio Okada on earlier drafts.

This paper has originally published in Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2004, volume 22, pages 349–362, Pion LTD, London; and We would like to thank the publishers for their permission to use the material here.


  1. Asahi, C., & Hagihara, K. (1999). Evaluating environmental risk in drinking water. Studies in Environmental System, 27, 395–401 (in Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2000). Walrasian economics in retrospect. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 1411–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crocker, T. D., Forster, B. A., & Shogren, J. F. (1991). Valuing potential groundwater protection benefits. Water Resources Research, 27, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Desvousges, W. H., Reed, J. F., & Spencer, B. H. (1998). Environmental policy analysis with limited information. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. Freeman, A. M. (1995). Evaluating changes in risk perceptions by revealed preference. In D. W. Bromley (Ed.), The handbook of environmental economics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Gurian, P. L., Small, M. J., Lockwood, J. R., & Schervish, M. J. (2001). Benefit-cost estimation for alternative drinking water maximum contaminant levels. Water Resources Research, 37, 2213–2226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagihara, K. (1996). Comprehensive urban economic studies. Comprehensive Urban Studies, 60, 95–104 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  8. Hagihara, K., & Hagihara, Y. (1990). Measuring the benefits of water quality improvement. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 8, 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hagihara, K., & Hagihara, Y. (2004). The role of environmental valuation in public policymaking: The case of urban waterside area in Japan. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hagihara, Y., et al. (2000). Planning on rain water environment in urban areas: An approach by the systems analysis. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  11. Hahnel, R., & Albert, M. (1990). Quiet revolution in welfare economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hanley, N., & Spash, C. L. (1993). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Hanley, N., Shogren, J. F., & White, B. (1997). Environmental economics in theory and practice. Hampshire: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Heap, S. H., Hollis, M., Lyons, B., Sugden, R., & Weale, A. (1992). The theory of choice- A critical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Jones-Lee, M. G., & Loomes, G. (1997). Valuing health and safety: Some economic and psychological issues. In R. Nau (Ed.), The economic and environmental risk and uncertainty- New models and methods. Dordrecht: Academic.Google Scholar
  16. Jordan, J. F., & Elnagheeb, A. H. (1993). Willingness to pay for improvements in drinking water quality. Water Resources Research, 29, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Just, R. E., Hueth, D. L., & Schmitz, A. (1982). Applied welfare economics and public policy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kask, S. B., & Shogren, J. F. (1994). Benefit transfer protocol for long-term health risk valuation: A case of surface water contamination. Water Resources Research, 30, 2813–2823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kreps, D. M. (1990). A course in microeconomic theory. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  21. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., & Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Matsubara, N. (1992). Statistical decision making. Tokyo: The University of the Air Press (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  23. McConnell, K. E., & Rosado, M. A. (2000). Valuing discrete improvements in drinking water quality through revealed preferences. Water Resources Research, 36, 1575–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell, R., & Carson, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: Contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  25. Niels, C. L. (1992). A national standard for risk analysis. Risk Abstract, 9, 1–3.Google Scholar
  26. Rubinstein, A. (1998). Modelling bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Shogren, J. F. (1990). Impact of self-protection and self-insurance on individual response to risk. Journal of Risk Uncertainty, 3, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 286–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suzumura, K. (1999). Paretian welfare judgements and Bergsonian social choice. The Economic Journal, 109, 204–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Syme, G. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). The psychology of drinking water quality: An exploratory study. Water Resources Research, 29, 4003–4010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kiyoko Hagihara
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chisato Asahi
    • 2
  • Yoshimi Hagihara
    • 3
  1. 1.School of SociologyBukkyo UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Urban Policy, Faculty of Urban Liberal ArtsTokyo Metropolitan UniversityHachioji, TokyoJapan
  3. 3.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations