IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sajeco/v76y2008i4p705-720.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness To Pay For Water Service Improvements In Middle‐Income Urban Households In South Africa: A Stated Choice Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • J.d. Snowball
  • K.g. Willis
  • C. Jeurissen

Abstract

Water provision is not only an economic issue in South Africa, but also of social and political significance. One of the important reasons for increasing the brief of local government is so that services can be provided taking into account heterogeneous community preferences. However, measuring such preferences for water, which has some public good characteristics, is a challenge. This study elicits household willingness to pay for improvements in water attributes in Grahamstown West in the Eastern Cape, using conjoint analysis. Results show a fairly high McFadden R2 and that Bacteria Count, Discolouration, Interruptions to supply and Price are statistically significant determinants of choice. The paper also suggests ways in which the model could be adapted for use in lower income and education households.

Suggested Citation

  • J.d. Snowball & K.g. Willis & C. Jeurissen, 2008. "Willingness To Pay For Water Service Improvements In Middle‐Income Urban Households In South Africa: A Stated Choice Analysis," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 76(4), pages 705-720, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sajeco:v:76:y:2008:i:4:p:705-720
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1813-6982.2008.00209.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1813-6982.2008.00209.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1813-6982.2008.00209.x?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. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Casey, James F. & Kahn, James R. & Rivas, Alexandre, 2006. "Willingness to pay for improved water service in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 365-372, June.
    3. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    4. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    5. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
    6. J.d. Snowball & K.g. Willis, 2006. "Building Cultural Capital: Transforming The South African National Arts Festival," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 74(1), pages 20-33, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Genius Murwirapachena & Johane Dikgang, 2022. "The effects of presentation formats in choice experiments," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(3), pages 421-445, July.
    2. Deborah Ellen Lee & Stephen Gerald Hosking & Mario Du Preez, 2015. "Managing Some Motorised Recreational Boating Challenges in South African Estuaries: A Case Study at the Kromme River Estuary," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 83(2), pages 286-302, June.
    3. Mahmoud K. El-Jafari, 2013. "Palestinian Household Willingness and Ability to Pay for Public Utilities in The West Bank: The Case of Electricity and Water," Working Papers 784, Economic Research Forum, revised Oct 2013.
    4. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Jia Wang & Jiaoju Ge & Zhifeng Gao, 2018. "Consumers’ Preferences and Derived Willingness-to-Pay for Water Supply Safety Improvement: The Analysis of Pricing and Incentive Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Jeuland, M.A. & Bhojvaid, V. & Kar, A. & Lewis, J.J. & Patange, O. & Pattanayak, S.K. & Ramanathan, N. & Rehman, I.H. & Tan Soo, J.S. & Ramanathan, V., 2015. "Preferences for improved cook stoves: Evidence from rural villages in north India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(PB), pages 287-298.

    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Caputo, Vincenzina & Loo, Ellen J. Van & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "“Using Experiments to Address Attribute Non-attendance in Consumer Food Choices”," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 177173, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Dale Whittington & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp201009s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2010.
    5. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Francisco González Gómez & Jorge Guardiola & Edna Guidi Gutiérrez, 2012. "Willingness to pay more for water in a climate of confrontation: The case of Sucre, Bolivia," Working Papers. Serie EC 2012-03, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    7. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    8. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    9. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Logit Mixed Logit Under Asymmetry and Multimodality of WTP: A Monte Carlo Evaluation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(2), pages 643-662, March.
    11. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    12. Barreiro-Hurle, Jesus & Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Martinez-Paz, Jose Miguel & Perni, Angel, 2018. "Choosing not to choose: A meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 18(01), June.
    13. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    14. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2017. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit-Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality," Working Papers in Economics 17/23, University of Waikato.
    15. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    16. Asgary, Ali & Rezvani, Mohammad Reza & Mehregan, Nader, 2011. "Local Residents’ Preferences for Second Home Tourism Development Policies: A Choice Experiment nalysis," MPRA Paper 29703, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    18. Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & De Salvo, Maria, 2012. "Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 355-369.
    19. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2010. "Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1532-1544, May.
    20. Arnaud Reynaud & Manh-Hung Nguyen & Cécile Aubert, 2018. "Is there a demand for flood insurance in Vietnam? Results from a choice experiment," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(3), pages 593-617, July.

    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:sajeco:v:76:y:2008:i:4:p:705-720. 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/essaaea.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.