IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/juipol/v71y2021ics0957178721000801.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Awareness of coping costs and willingness to pay for urban drinking water service: Evidence from Lahore, Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Hasan, Syed M.
  • Akram, Agha Ali
  • Jeuland, Marc

Abstract

The global population is rapidly urbanizing, increasing pressure on scarce water resources. Lahore, Pakistan, is a case in point, with limited options for increasing water supply to meet booming demand. We ask whether households are willing to pay more cost-reflective tariffs following a simple, randomized information treatment involving calculation of the costs of coping with poor service quality. Treated households are 20 percentage points more likely to acquiesce to increased tariffs for improved service, and median monthly WTP increases 17–18%. A simple verbal procedure can increase acceptance of price increases, offering managers a valuable tool for water demand management.

Suggested Citation

  • Hasan, Syed M. & Akram, Agha Ali & Jeuland, Marc, 2021. "Awareness of coping costs and willingness to pay for urban drinking water service: Evidence from Lahore, Pakistan," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:71:y:2021:i:c:s0957178721000801
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jup.2021.101246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178721000801
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jup.2021.101246?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miriam Bruhn & David McKenzie, 2009. "In Pursuit of Balance: Randomization in Practice in Development Field Experiments," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(4), pages 200-232, October.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Mirajul Haq & Usman Mustafa & Iftikhar Ahmad, 2007. "Household s Willingness to Pay for Safe Drinking Water: A Case Study of Abbottabad District," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 1137-1153.
    4. Whittington, Dale & Briscoe, John & Mu, Xinming & Barron, William, 1990. "Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Water Services in Developing Countries: A Case Study of the Use of Contingent Valuation Surveys in Southern Haiti," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 293-311, January.
    5. Christopher G. Leggett & Naomi S. Kleckner & Kevin J. Boyle & John W. Dufield & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2003. "Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 561-575.
    6. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    7. Heather E. Campbell & Ryan M. Johnson & Elizabeth Hunt Larson, 2004. "Prices, Devices, People, or Rules: The Relative Effectiveness of Policy Instruments in Water Conservation1," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 21(5), pages 637-662, September.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    9. John Whitehead & Daniel Phaneuf & Christopher Dumas & Jim Herstine & Jeffery Hill & Bob Buerger, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 91-112, January.
    10. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    11. Whittington, Dale & Lauria, Donald T. & Mu, Xinming, 1991. "A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 179-198.
    12. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
    13. Urama, Kevin C. & Hodge, Ian D., 2006. "Are stated preferences convergent with revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 24-37, August.
    14. World Bank, 2015. "Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia," Working Papers id:7550, eSocialSciences.
    15. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    16. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    17. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    18. Noor, Junaid & Siddiqi, Wasif & Muhammad, Taj, 2010. "Estimation of Willingness to Pay for Improvements in Drinking Water Quality in Lahore: A Case Study of WASA, Lahore," MPRA Paper 53763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    20. Brown, Joe & Hamoudi, Amar & Jeuland, Marc & Turrini, Gina, 2017. "Seeing, believing, and behaving: Heterogeneous effects of an information intervention on household water treatment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 141-159.
    21. Kalpana Kochhar & Catherine A Pattillo & Yan M Sun & Nujin Suphaphiphat & Andrew J Swiston & Robert Tchaidze & Benedict J. Clements & Stefania Fabrizio & Valentina Flamini & Laure Redifer & Harald Fin, 2015. "Is the Glass Half Empty Or Half Full?; Issues in Managing Water Challenges and Policy Instruments," IMF Staff Discussion Notes 15/11, International Monetary Fund.
    22. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    23. Hoyos, David & Riera, Pere, 2013. "Convergent validity between revealed and stated recreation demand data: Some empirical evidence from the Basque Country, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 234-248.
    24. Orgill-Meyer, Jennifer & Jeuland, Marc & Albert, Jeff & Cutler, Nathan, 2018. "Comparing Contingent Valuation and Averting Expenditure Estimates of the Costs of Irregular Water Supply," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 250-264.
    25. Ms. Kalpana Kochhar & Ms. Catherine A Pattillo & Ms. Yan M Sun & Mrs. Nujin Suphaphiphat & Mr. Andrew J Swiston & Mr. Robert Tchaidze & Mr. Benedict J. Clements & Ms. Stefania Fabrizio & Valentina Fla, 2015. "Is the Glass Half Empty Or Half Full?: Issues in Managing Water Challenges and Policy Instruments," IMF Staff Discussion Notes 2015/011, International Monetary Fund.
    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. Pérez-Urdiales, María & Libra, Jesse M. & Machado, Kleber B. & Serebrisky, Tomás & Sosa, Ben Solís, 2024. "Household water bill perception in Brazil," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Karki, Dipesh, 2023. "Factors affecting nonpayment of water service by rural households in Nepal," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Koo, A Mi & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Household willingness to pay for a smart water metering and monitoring system: The case of South Korea," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    3. Kemeze, Francis H., 2020. "Demand for Supplemental Irrigation via Small-Scale Water Harvesting," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304569, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    5. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2019. "Distinguishing protest responses in contingent valuation: A conceptualization of motivations and attitudes behind them," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, January.
    6. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    7. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    9. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    10. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    11. Taale, Francis & Kyeremeh, Christian, 2016. "Households׳ willingness to pay for reliable electricity services in Ghana," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 280-288.
    12. Tisdell, Clem & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2008. "Contingent valuation as a dynamic process," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1443-1458, August.
    13. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    14. O. Ashton Morgan & William L.Huth & Paul Hindsley, 2017. "Examining the Perceptions and Effects of Survey Consequentiality Across Population Subgroups," Working Papers 17-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    15. Clive L Spash, 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    16. Saengsupavanich, Cherdvong & Seenprachawong, Udomsak & Gallardo, Wenresti G. & Shivakoti, Ganesh P., 2008. "Port-induced erosion prediction and valuation of a local recreational beach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 93-103, August.
    17. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    18. Moisés Carrasco Garcés & Felipe Vasquez-Lavin & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & José Luis Bustamante Oporto & Manuel Barrientos & Arcadio A. Cerda, 2021. "Embedding effect and the consequences of advanced disclosure: evidence from the valuation of cultural goods," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 1039-1062, August.
    19. Patrizia Riganti, 2022. "Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation Applications to Cultural Capital: Does the Nature of the Goods Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, May.
    20. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2003. "Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 59-72, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Information treatment; Contingent valuation; Coping costs; Water pricing; Field experiment; Piped water supply; Pakistan;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • L95 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Gas Utilities; Pipelines; Water Utilities

    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:eee:juipol:v:71:y:2021:i:c:s0957178721000801. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/utilities-policy .

    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.