IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare10/58892.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Urban Water Restrictions: Attitudes and Avoidance

Author

Listed:
  • Cooper, Bethany
  • Crase, Lin
  • Burton, Michael P.

Abstract

In most urban cities across Australia, water restrictions remain the dominant policy mechanism to restrict urban water consumption. The extensive adoption of water restrictions over several years means that Australian urban water prices have consistently not reflected the opportunity cost of water (Edwards 2008). Given the generally strong political support for water restrictions and the likelihood that they will persist for some time, there is value in understanding householders’ attitudes in this context. More specifically, identifying the welfare gains associated with avoiding urban water restrictions entirely would be a non-trivial contribution to our knowledge. This paper is used to describe the results from a contingent valuation study that investigates consumers’ willingness to pay to avoid urban water restrictions. Importantly, the research also investigates the influence of cognitive and exogenous dimensions on the utility gain associated with avoiding water restrictions. The results provides some salutary insights into the impact of this policy mechanism on economic welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Cooper, Bethany & Crase, Lin & Burton, Michael P., 2010. "Urban Water Restrictions: Attitudes and Avoidance," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 58892, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare10:58892
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.58892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/58892/files/Cooper_%20Bethany.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.58892?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. R. Quentin Grafton & Tom Kompas, 2007. "Pricing Sydney water ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(3), pages 227-241, September.
    2. R. Quentin Grafton & Michael B. Ward, 2008. "Prices versus Rationing: Marshallian Surplus and Mandatory Water Restrictions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(s1), pages 57-65, September.
    3. Christian Vossler & Gregory Poe & P. Welsh & Robert Ethier, 2004. "Bid Design Effects in Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(4), pages 401-418, December.
    4. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    5. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & Oppen, Matthias Von, 2007. "Farmer willingness to pay for seed-related information: rice varieties in Nigeria and Benin," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(6), pages 799-825, December.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    7. Brennan, Donna C. & Tapsuwan, Sorada & Ingram, Gordon, 2007. "The welfare costs of urban outdoor water restrictions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(3), pages 1-19.
    8. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Gregory L. Poe & Nelson L. Bills & B.C. Bellows & Patricia Crosscombe & Richard K. Koelsch & Michael J. Kreher & Peter Wright, 2001. "Will Voluntary and Educational Programs Meet Environmental Objectives? Evidence from a Survey of New York Dairy Farms," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 473-491.
    11. Donna Brennan & Sorada Tapsuwan & Gordon Ingram, 2007. "The welfare costs of urban outdoor water restrictions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(3), pages 243-261, September.
    12. Byrnes, Joel & Crase, Lin & Dollery, Brian, 2006. "Regulation versus pricing in urban water policy: the case of the Australian National Water Initiative," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(3), pages 1-13, September.
    13. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    14. Cai, Beilei & Cameron, Trudy Ann & Gerdes, Geoffrey R., 2011. "Distal order effects in stated preference surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1101-1108, April.
    15. Cooper, Bethany & Crase, Lin, 2009. "Urban Water Restrictions: Unbundling Motivations, Compliance and Policy Viability," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48039, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Ronald C. Griffin & James W. Mjelde, 2000. "Valuing Water Supply Reliability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 414-426.
    17. Rowe, Robert D. & Schulze, William D. & Breffle, William S., 1996. "A Test for Payment Card Biases," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 178-185, September.
    18. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
    19. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    20. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2006. "Water Supply Security and Willingness to Pay to Avoid Drought Restrictions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 56-66, March.
    21. Mary F. Evans & Nicholas E. Flores & Kevin J. Boyle, 2003. "Multiple-Bounded Uncertainty Choice Data as Probabilistic Intentions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 549-560.
    22. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    23. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    24. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    25. Geoff Edwards, 2006. "Whose Values Count? Demand Management for Melbourne's Water," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(s1), pages 54-63, September.
    26. Brian Roach & Kevin J. Boyle & Michael Welsh, 2002. "Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 121-131.
    27. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Allison Lassiter & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2016. "Valuing Environmental Services Provided by LocalStormwater Management," Monash Economics Working Papers 35-16, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    3. Bethany Cooper & John Rose & Lin Crase, 2012. "Does anybody like water restrictions? Some observations in Australian urban communities," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(1), pages 61-81, January.

    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. Bethany Cooper & Michael Burton & Lin Crase, 2019. "Willingness to Pay to Avoid Water Restrictions in Australia Under a Changing Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 823-847, March.
    2. Broberg, Thomas & Brännlund, Runar, 2008. "An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data--Certainty dependent payment card intervals," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 555-567, December.
    3. Productivity Commission, 2008. "Towards Urban Water Reform: A Discussion Paper," Research Papers 0801, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    4. Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P. & Parajuli, Shanta, 2009. "Broiler Producers’ Willingness To Pay To Manage Nutrient Pollution," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46825, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. 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.
    6. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    7. Neal Hughes & Ahmed Hafi & Tim Goesch, 2009. "Urban water management: optimal price and investment policy under climate variability ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(2), pages 175-192, April.
    8. Bethany Cooper, 2017. "What drives compliance? An application of the theory of planned behaviour to urban water restrictions using structural equation modelling," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(14), pages 1426-1439, March.
    9. Freebairn, John W., 2012. "Risk Aversion and Urban Water Decisions," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124206, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    11. Bigerna, Simona & Polinori, Paolo, 2014. "Italian households׳ willingness to pay for green electricity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 110-121.
    12. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. John Freebairn, 2013. "Imperfect Knowledge and Urban Water Decisions," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 32-40, March.
    14. repec:bla:ausecr:v:41:y:2008:i:4:p:401-412 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    16. Simona Bigerna & Paolo Polinori, 2015. "Willingness to Pay and Public Acceptance for Hydrogen Buses: A Case Study of Perugia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Cristeche, Estela & Tello, Diego & de Prada, Jorge & Brescia, Victor, 2015. "Contigent Valuation with Multiple Bounded Format and Uncertainty Response of a Rural Land Zoning Program in the South of Cordoba Province, Argentina," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211551, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C. & Provencher, Bill & Champ, Patricia A., 2009. "Accounting for Respondent Uncertainty to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," Staff Papers 92233, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    19. Boman, Mattias, 2009. "To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests - What scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 79-91, January.
    20. Clevo Wilson & Wasantha Athukorala & Benno Torgler & Robert Gifford & Maria A. Garcia-Valiñas & Shunsuke Managi, 2021. "Willingness to pay to ensure a continuous water supply with minimum restrictions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 1519-1537, September.
    21. Ousmane Z. Traoré & Lota D. Tamini & Bernard Korai, 2023. "Willingness to pay for credence attributes associated with agri‐food products—Evidence from Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(3-4), pages 303-327, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aare10:58892. 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: AgEcon Search (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.