IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/soa/wpaper/180.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Groundwater Contamination and Contingent Valuation of Safe Drinking Water in Guadalupe, Zacatecas, Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Osiel González Dávila

    (Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK)

Abstract

Guadalupe municipality, located in a semi-arid zone, belongs to the State of Zacatecas in north-central Mexico. The population in Guadalupe has been increasing in an exponential way from the year 2000 to 2010. With a bigger population in the area more services are required, including water supply and sanitation. Guadalupe depends on groundwater for its domestic water supply. It has no access to surface water and its aquifers are overexploited. There is a high risk that in the near future the population’s water demand could not be satisfied. Therefore groundwater protection should be a priority. High levels of fluoride and arsenic have been found in extraction wells and in tap water in Guadalupe City. This may seriously affect the population’s health. An exploratory study found statistically significant correlations between the presence of arsenicosis and fluorosis symptoms and the consumption of certain food items and tap water. A contingent valuation survey is used to elicit household willingness to pay responses for safe drinking water in Guadalupe. The objective is to investigate households’ willingness to pay for improved water quality through the installation of a new filtration system to remove fluoride and arsenic from groundwater. It was found that individuals' subjective perceptions of contamination may change their attitude towards the installation of water purification systems, thereby changing the effective price of potable groundwater that they are willing to pay. It is evident that different types of contamination (by arsenic and fluoride in this case) had differing effects on values. Value estimates also changed as the socioeconomic profiles of survey respondents changed. Further, it was found that the respondents stated in average a higher WTP for the removal of fluoride (MXN 66.37) than for the removal of arsenic (MXN 56.55).

Suggested Citation

  • Osiel González Dávila, 2013. "Groundwater Contamination and Contingent Valuation of Safe Drinking Water in Guadalupe, Zacatecas, Mexico," Working Papers 180, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK.
    • Handle: RePEc:soa:wpaper:180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.soas.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-10/economics-wp180.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    3. Ilde Rizzo & Anna Mignosa (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on the Economics of Cultural Heritage," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14326.
    4. 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.
    5. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Benno Torgler & Bruno S. Frey & Clevo Wilson, 2007. "Environmental and Pro-Social Norms: Evidence from 30 Countries," Working Papers 2007.84, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Mariana Conte Grand & Martina Chidiak, 2010. "Cambios potenciales en los usos recreativos de la costa del río Uruguay ante la instalación de la planta de celulosa Fray Bentos: un ejercicio de valoración contingente," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 432, Universidad del CEMA.
    9. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    10. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2009. "Public values for improved water security for domestic and environmental use," Research Reports 94818, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. 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.
    12. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    13. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    14. Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 369-401, May.
    15. Mozumder, Pallab & Vásquez, William F. & Marathe, Achla, 2011. "Consumers' preference for renewable energy in the southwest USA," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1119-1126.
    16. García-Valiñas, María A. & Macintyre, Alison & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Volunteering, pro-environmental attitudes and norms," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 455-467.
    17. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Langenberger, Gerhard & Pelz, Sonna, 2014. "Chinese urbanites and the preservation of rare species in remote parts of the country: the example of eaglewood," MPRA Paper 62897, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 11 Dec 2014.
    18. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    19. Bishop, Richard C., 2018. "Warm Glow, Good Feelings, and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    20. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Groundwater contamination; Arsenic; Fluoride; Contingent Valuation; Zacatecas Mexico;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    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:soa:wpaper:180. 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: Chandni Dwarkasing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/desoauk.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.