IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v65y2021i2p449-471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Matching customers’ preferences for tariff reform with managers’ appetite for change: The case of volumetric‐only tariffs in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Saeideh Khosroshahi
  • Lin Crase
  • Bethany Cooper
  • Michael Burton

Abstract

At the height of the Millennium Drought in Australia, there was unprecedented interest in the role of demand‐side management in the urban water sector. Conservation tariffs, where water users pay significantly less by reducing consumption, were mooted in some policy circles, although they were never seriously trialled. The easing of the drought was also accompanied by a new era of economic regulation, where monopoly water suppliers are increasingly encouraged to deliver services valued by customers. This trend has been embraced in Victoria, where the Essential Services Commission effectively rewards water businesses that match their services against customer expectations. This article explores whether customers and business managers hold similar priorities for water services by using a Best‐Worst Scaling experiment. The experiment includes a conservation tariff, and findings suggest that customers enjoy relatively higher utility from these tariffs, sustainability, water restrictions and small‐scale projects compared to the services emphasised by managers. The study exposes the general difficulty of water businesses matching their customers’ preferences, especially if there is heterogeneity in preferences and given businesses must simultaneously deliver on many other fronts.

Suggested Citation

  • Saeideh Khosroshahi & Lin Crase & Bethany Cooper & Michael Burton, 2021. "Matching customers’ preferences for tariff reform with managers’ appetite for change: The case of volumetric‐only tariffs in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(2), pages 449-471, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:65:y:2021:i:2:p:449-471
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8489.12417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12417
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-8489.12417?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jordan Louviere & Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiments to Measure Public Perceptions and Preferences for Healthcare Reform in Australia," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 275-283, December.
    2. Umberger, Wendy J. & Stringer, Randy & Mueller, Simone C., 2010. "Using Best-Worst Scaling to Determine Market Channel Choice by Small Farmers in Indonesia," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 90853, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Ronald C. Griffin, 2006. "Water Resource Economics: The Analysis of Scarcity, Policies, and Projects," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026207267x, December.
    4. Bethany Cooper & Michael Burton & Lin Crase, 2018. "Valuing improvements in urban water security: evidence of heterogeneity derived from a latent class model for eastern Australia," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(31), pages 3364-3375, July.
    5. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2012. "Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 661-670.
    6. Littlechild, Stephen, 2014. "The Customer Forum: Customer engagement in the Scottish water sector," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 206-218.
    7. Fleming, Christopher M. & Cook, Averil, 2007. "Web surveys, sample bias and the travel cost method," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10358, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Bethany Cooper & Lin Crase & Darryl Maybery, 2017. "Pushing the Governance Boundaries: Making Transparent the Role of Water Utilities in Managing Urban Waterways," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(8), pages 2429-2446, June.
    9. Haughton, Dominique & Legrand, Pascal & Woolford, Sam, 2009. "Review of Three Latent Class Cluster Analysis Packages: Latent Gold, poLCA, and MCLUST," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 63(1), pages 81-91.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    2. Ochieng’, Brian J. & Hobbs, Jill E., 2016. "Incentives for cattle producers to adopt an E. Coli vaccine: An application of best–worst scaling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 78-87.
    3. Elizabeth S. Byrd & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2018. "Presentation matters: Number of attributes presented impacts estimated preferences," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 377-389, March.
    4. Shaosheng Jin & Bashiru Mansaray & Xin Jin & Haoyang Li, 2020. "Farmers’ preferences for attributes of rice varieties in Sierra Leone," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 1185-1197, October.
    5. Khosroshahi, Saeideh & Crase, Lin & Cooper, Bethany & Burton, Michael, 2020. "Matching customers’ preferences for tariff reform with managers’ appetite for change: The case of volumetric-only tariffs in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(02), January.
    6. Katrina J Davis & Marit E Kragt & Stefan Gelcich & Michael Burton & Steven Schilizzi & David J Pannell, 2017. "Why are Fishers not Enforcing Their Marine User Rights?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(4), pages 661-681, August.
    7. David Aubin & Frédéric Varone, 2013. "Getting Access to Water: Property Rights or Public Policy Strategies?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(1), pages 154-167, February.
    8. Muunda, Emmanuel & Mtimet, Nadhem & Schneider, Franziska & Wanyoike, Francis & Dominguez-Salas, Paula & Alonso, Silvia, 2021. "Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Chung, Sol & Agnew, Julie & Bateman, Hazel & Eckert, Christine & Liu, Junhao & Thorp, Susan, 2024. "The impact of mortgage broker use on borrower confusion and preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 229-247.
    10. Danny Campbell & Seda Erdem, 2015. "Position Bias in Best-worst Scaling Surveys: A Case Study on Trust in Institutions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 526-545.
    11. Daniel Duma & Michael G. Pollitt & Andrei Covatariu, 2024. "Regulatory Learning in the Face of Net Zero Climate Policy: The Case of the UK," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 65(2), pages 505-530, September.
    12. Sarah Ann Wheeler, 2022. "Debunking Murray‐Darling Basin water trade myths," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(4), pages 797-821, October.
    13. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    14. Loureiro, Maria L. & Dominguez Arcos, Fernando, 2012. "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 381-394.
    15. Mahdi Zarghami, 2010. "Urban Water Management Using Fuzzy-Probabilistic Multi-Objective Programming with Dynamic Efficiency," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(15), pages 4491-4504, December.
    16. Claudio Arena & Marcella Cannarozzo & Mario Mazzola, 2014. "Screening Investments to Reduce the Risk of Hydrologic Failures in the Headwork System Supplying Apulia (Italy) – Role of Economic Evaluation and Operation Hydrology," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(5), pages 1251-1275, March.
    17. Pham, Hung Duy & Crase, Lin & Burton, Michael & Cooper, Bethany, 2019. "Strategies for integrating farmers into modern vegetable supply chains in Vietnam: farmer attitudes and willingness to accept," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    18. Tatenda T Yemeke & Elizabeth E Kiracho & Aloysius Mutebi & Rebecca R Apolot & Anthony Ssebagereka & Daniel R Evans & Sachiko Ozawa, 2020. "Health versus other sectors: Multisectoral resource allocation preferences in Mukono district, Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    20. Danso, G.K. & Jeffrey, S.R. & Dridi, C. & Veeman, T., 2021. "Modeling irrigation technology adoption and crop choices: Gains from water trading with farmer heterogeneity in Southern Alberta, Canada," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:65:y:2021:i:2:p:449-471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.