Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Willingness to Pay for Gray and Green Interventions to Augment Water Supply: A Case Study in Rural Costa Rica

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many rural communities in developing countries experience severe water shortages, limiting their capacity for self-sustainability. This study used contingent valuation and choice experiment methods and in-person interviews to estimate household willingness to pay (WTP) for gray and green interventions to augment water supply in rural Costa Rica. In particular, we examined residents’ preferences for well construction, as a form of gray intervention, and reforestation, as a form of green intervention, aimed at alleviating water shortages. Household WTP to reduce annual water shortage by one day varied between $0.85 (95% CI = 0.77–0.94) and $1.32 (95% CI = 1.08–2.56) per month depending on the project. The results also indicated that households were willing to pay $2.28 (95% CI = 1.36–3.21) and $3.51 (95% CI = 2.57–4.44) per month to increase forest cover in the watershed by 140–180 and 300–340 ha, respectively, assuming no additional water provision from the reforestation project. Nonwater-related benefits comprised 25–34% of the WTP for green intervention, depending on the acreage scenario. We also observed that, even without the nonwater-related ecosystem service benefits associated with reforestation, the value of water from green intervention exceeded the corresponding value of water from gray intervention. The disparity between preferences for water obtained from gray and green intervention may be due to differences in corresponding timing, uncertainty, quality of additional water made available from the considered projects, and differences in value elicitation methods.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the term reforestation to refer to increases in native forest cover on deforested land at the watershed scale.

  2. Water scarcity is measured in terms of annual number of interruptions to water service due to low water levels.

  3. The currency exchange rate was 1 USD = 537 colones (₡) at the time of the survey.

  4. All households within ASADAS experience about the same level of water scarcity as interruptions affect all households equally.

  5. A similar strategy for representing choice attributes as continuous or categorical across different model specifications can be found in Glenk and Colombo (2011).

  6. The ML model was estimated with random parameters for all variables, except for the cost using 500 Halton draws. It is a common practice to hold the cost coefficient fixed to facilitate the estimation of marginal WTP for the attributes in ML models (Train 2009; Wielgus et al. 2009). Econometrics of ML models are discussed by Train (2009).

  7. The remaining 155 respondents filled out CEs that included attributes and choices not relevant for this study and are part of a separate investigation.

  8. One day of water shortage is equivalent to twenty-four cumulative hours of water service interruption. For instance, 24 h of water shortage within a 72-h (3 days) window is equivalent to one day of water shortage.

  9. While the scope of this study excludes a detailed examination of the relationship between forest cover and water provision, we use this preliminary evidence as a motivation for examining WTP for reforestation aimed at improving water provision. We encourage more detailed and careful future examination of the relationship between forest cover and water provision by experts in the biophysical scientific fields.

  10. Similar to the CV analysis, we also estimated a model that explores the effects of water scarcity and community-specific factors on the respondent’s choices using ASADAS-specific fixed effects. In this model, water scarcity and water supply district-specific factors were statistically insignificant, except for one district. We found no differences in WTP estimates between the model that includes water scarcity and ASADAS binary variables and the model that does not. Therefore, Table 6 reports the results from the models that exclude ASADAS binary variables.

References

  • Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approach for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80:64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aide TM, Grau HR (2004) Globalization, migration, and Latin American ecosystems. Science 305:1915–1916

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpízar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8:83–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney RPR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Shuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

  • Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson S (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Massachusetts, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Birol E, Smale M, Gyovai A (2006) Using a choice experiment to estimate farmers’ valuation of agrobiodiversity on hungarian small farms. Environ Resour Econ 34:439–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauman KA, Daily GC, Ka’eo Duarte T, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruijnzeel LA (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agric, Ecosyst, Environ 104:185–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvo-Alvarado J, McLennan B, Sánchez-Azofeifa A, Garvin T (2009) Deforestation and forest restoration in Guanacaste, Costa Rica: putting conservation policies in context. For Ecol Manag 258:931–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA, Poe GL, Ethier RG, Schulze WD (2002) Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same? J Environ Econ Manag 44(3):391–425. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag 41:179–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT (1997) Contingent valuation and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Kopp RJ, Pommerhene W, Schwartz N (eds) Determining the value of non-marketed goods: economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods. Kluwer, Boston, p 127–163

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Casey JF, Kahn JR, Rivas A (2006) Willingness to pay for improved water service in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Ecol Econ 58:365–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro-Chacón S (2004) Del conflicto a la cogestión del agua en la microcuenca del Río Nimboyores, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. M.Sc. Thesis. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee C, Triplett R, Johnson CK, Ahmed P (2017) Willingness to pay for safe drinking water: a contingent valuation study in Jacksonville, FL. J Environ Manag 203(1):413–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen WY, Jim CY (2010) Resident motivations and willingness-to-pay for urban biodiversity conservation in Guangzhou (China). Environ Manag 45:1052–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily G, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges W, Mathews K, Train K (2012) Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 84:121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esmail AB, Geneletti D (2020) Linking ecosystem services to urban water infrastructures and institutions. In: Ecosystem services for urban water security. SpringerBriefs in Geography. Springer, Cham

  • Falkenmark M (1997) Meeting water requirements for an expanding world population. Philos Trans R Soc London 352:929–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FONAFIFO—Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal (2014) Datos históricos de las presolicitudes recibidas: Periodo 2003–2013. www.fonafifo.cr.gov

  • Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Bateman I (2014) Revealed and stated preference valuation and transfer: a within-sample comparison of water quality improvement values. Water Resour Res 50(6):4746–4759. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013wr014905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fremier AK, DeClerck FAJ, Bosque-Pérez NA, Estrada-Carmona N, Hill R, Joyal T, Keesecker L, Klos PZ, Martinez-Salinas A, Niemeyer R, Sanfiorenzo A, Welsh K, Wulfhorst JD(2013) Understanding spatial-temporal lags in ecosystem services to improve incentive mechanisms and governance BioScience 63:472–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith SM, Hall TE, Tavárez HS, Kooistra CM, Ordoñez JC, Bosque-Pérez NA(2017) Local ecological knowledge reveals effects of policy-driven land use and cover change on beekeepers in Costa Rica. Land Use Policy 69:112–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genius M, Hatzaki E, Kouromichelaki EM, Kouvakis G, Nikiforaki S, Tsagarakis KP(2008) Evaluating consumers’ willingness to pay for improved potable water quality and quantity. Water Resour Manag 22:1825–1834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenk K, Colombo S(2011) How sure can you be? A framework for considering delivery uncertainty in benefit assessments based on stated preference methods. J Agric Econ 62:25–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel P, Bremer LL, Ponette-González AG, Acosta E, Fisher JRB, Steele B, Cavassani AT, Klemz C, Blainski E, Brauman KA (2020) The value of hydrologic information for watershed management programs: the case of Camboriú, Brazil. Sci Total Environ 705:135871

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann M (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3):332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52(5):1219–1240

    Article  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 

  • Hensher D, Shore N, Train K (2006) Water supply security and willingness to pay to avoid drought restrictions. Econ Rec 82:56–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyos D (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ 69:1595–1603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilstedt U, Malmer A, Verbeeten E, Murdiyarso D (2007) The effects of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. For Ecol Manag 251:45–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INEC—Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censo (2015) Población total por grupos de edades, según provincia y cantón: 2011–2025. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censo, San José, Costa Rica

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivehammar P (2009) The payment vehicle used in CV studies of environmental goods does matter. J Agric Resour Econ 34(3):450–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RB, Jobbágy EG, Avissar R, Roy SB, Barrett DJ, Cook CW, Farley KA, le Maitre DC, McCarl BA, Murray BC (2005) Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 310:1944–1947

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jin J, Wang Z, Ran S (2006) Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecol Econ 57:430–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Ryan M, Scarpa R, Tourangeau R, Vossler CA (2017) Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 4(2):319–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan JL, Elnagheeb AH (1994) Differences in contingent valuation estimates from referendum and checklist questions. J Agric Resour Econ 19(1):115–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmalkar AV, Bradley RS, Diaz HF (2008) Climate change scenario for Costa Rican Montane Forests. Geophys Res Lett 35:L11702. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konikow LF, Kendy E (2005) Ground water depletion: a global problem. Hydrogeol J 13:317–320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krinsky I, Robb AL (1990) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities: a correction. Rev Econ Stat 72(1):189–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnaswamy J, Bonell M, Venkatesh B, Purandara BK, Rakesh KN, Lele S, Kiran MC, Reddy V, Badiger S (2013) The groundwater recharge response and hydrologic services of tropical humid forest ecosystems to use and reforestation: support for the “infiltration-evapotranspiration trade-off hypothesis. J Hydrol 498:191–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladenburg J, Olsen SB (2008) Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manag 56:275–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods. Analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Madrigal R, Alpízar F, Schlüter A (2011) Determinants of performance of community-based drinking water organizations. World Dev 9:1663–1675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (2001) Latin America. In: Basso E, Compagnucci R, Fearnside P, Magrin G, Marengo J, Moreno AR, Suárez A, Solman S, Villamizar A, Villers L (eds) Climate change 2011: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA, p 693–734

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald DH, Morrison MD, Barnes MB (2010) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept compensation for changes in urban water customer service standards. Water Resour Manag 24:3145–3158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell JJ, Sivapalan M, Vaché K, Dunn S, Grant G, Haggerty R, Hinz C, Hooper R, Kirchner J, Roderick ML, Selker J, Weiler M (2007) Moving beyond heterogeneity and process complexity: a new vision for watershed hydrology. Water Resour Res 43:W07301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2009) Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ 85:515–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyholm T, Christensen S, Rasmussen KR (2002) Flow depletion in a small stream caused by ground water abstraction from wells. Ground Water 40(4):425–437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 65:712–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park T, Loomis JB, Creel M (1991) Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ 67:64–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak SK, Butry DT (2005) Spatial complementarity of forests and farms: accounting for ecosystem services. Am J Agric Econ 87(4):995–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro P (2010) Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy 4:254–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raje DV, Dhobe PS, Deshpande AW (2002) Consumer’s willingness to pay more for municipal supplied water: a case study. Ecol Econ 42:391–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robalino J, Pfaff A (2013) Ecopayments and deforestation in Costa Rica: a nationwide analysis of PSA’s initial years. Land Econ 89(3):432–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudd MA, Andres S, Kilfoil M (2016) Non-use economic values for little-known aquatic species at risk: comparing choice experiment results from surveys focused on species, guilds, and ecosystems. Environ Manag 58:476–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandstrӧm K(1998) Can forests “provide” water: widespread myth or scientific reality? Ambio 27(2):132–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrano ME (2005) Evaluación y planificación del manejo forestal sostenible en escala de paisaje en Hojancha, Costa Rica. M.S. Thesis. CATIE, Costa Rica

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor T, Longo A (2010) Valuing algal bloom in the Black Sea Coast of Bulgaria: a choice experiments approach. J Environ Manag 91:1963–1971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulations, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tussupova K, Berndtsson R, Bramryd T, Beisenova R(2015) Investigating willingness to pay to improve water supply services: Application of contingent valuation method. Water 7:3024–3039

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (United Nations Development Program) (2006) Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and the global water crisis. Human Development Report, New York, N.Y., USA

  • Uwera C, Stage J(2015) Individual status quo modelling for a rural water service in Rwanda: application of a choice experiment. Environ Dev Econ 21:490–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vásquez WF, Mozumder P, Hernádez-Arce J, Berrens RP (2009) Willingness to pay for safe drinking water: evidence from Parral, Mexico. J Environ Manag 90:3391–3400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vega-García H (2005) Migración ambiental inducida por variabilidad climática: El caso del corredor centroamericano de la sequía. CEMEDE, San José, Costa Rica

  • Welsh K, Keesecker L, Hill R, Joyal T, Boll J, Bosque-Pérez N, Cosens B, Fremier AK (2020) Scale mismatch in social–ecological systems: a Costa Rican case study of spring water management. Sustain Water Resour Manag 6:40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-020-00398-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wielgus J, Gerber LR, Sala E, Bennett J (2009) Including risk in stated preference economic valuation: experiments of choices for marine recreation. J Environ Manag 90:3401–3409

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to presidents of local water distribution associations and residents of the region for their participation in this study. We are also grateful to the officials at the regional office of the National System of Conservation Areas in Hojancha for their support.

Funding

This work was supported by the NSF-IGERT Grant # 0903479 and the USAID Borlaug Fellowship in Food Security Grant # A1102.2. Partial support was provided by USDA-NIFA Hatch Grant # WVA00691.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico

    Héctor Tavárez

  2. Department of Resource Economics and Management and the Center for Innovation in Gas Research and Utilization, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Levan Elbakidze

  3. Department of Agroenvironmental Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico

    Oscar J. Abelleira-Martínez

  4. Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center, Turrialba, Costa Rica

    Zayra Ramos-Bendaña

  5. Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Nematology, Environmental Science Program, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA

    Nilsa A. Bosque-Pérez

Authors
  1. Héctor Tavárez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Levan Elbakidze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oscar J. Abelleira-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zayra Ramos-Bendaña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nilsa A. Bosque-Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Héctor Tavárez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A1: example of the CV question

The ASADA where you live on average has 240 h (the equivalent of 10 days) of water scarcity per year. Suppose that the government or the municipality of your county is willing to construct a well to increase the amount of water for household uses by 168 (the equivalent of 7 days) during the dry season. Wells generate water immediately, but some wells in the past have gone dry after several years of service. If the well is constructed, the households will face an increase in the monthly payment. Given the costs, the well will be constructed only if a sufficient number of households are willing to pay the rate. All households benefiting from this well in the region will pay the same rate.

The project implementation will cost you [amount in colons] monthly for as long as the service is provided. Would you support such project and be willing to pay the above amount for well construction?

Yes _____ No _____

Appendix A2: example of the CE exercise

The ASADA where you live on average has 240 h (the equivalent of 10 days) of water scarcity per year. Suppose that reforestation in the watershed is under consideration for alleviating water scarcity during dry seasons. This project will increase forest cover in the ASADA and/or its surrounding areas in the watershed (see the map at the end of the survey). The location of the project has not been finalized at this point. With the exception of residential areas, all lands are eligible for reforestation. In addition to water provision, the forest provides other benefits, including protection of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and scenic beauty. However, there may be a significant delay in water provision after reforestation. Additional water may become available only after a few years.

Which option would you choose?

 

Option A

Option B

Option C

Native forest cover in the watershed surrounding the ASADA

Between 140 and 180 ha more than the current situation

Between 300 and 340 ha more than the current situation

Same as today

Water availability

72 h more than the current situation (the equivalent of 3 days)

144 h more than the current situation (the equivalent of 6 days)

Same as today

Cost per month

₡2000

₡3000

₡0

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tavárez, H., Elbakidze, L., Abelleira-Martínez, O.J. et al. Willingness to Pay for Gray and Green Interventions to Augment Water Supply: A Case Study in Rural Costa Rica. Environmental Management 69, 636–651 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01476-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01476-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation