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, March.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
    11. Mary Riddel & John Loomis, 1998. "Joint Estimation of Multiple CVM Scenarios under a Double Bounded Questioning Format," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 77-98, July.
    12. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Usman Mustafa & Iftikhar Ahmad & Miraj ul Haq, 2014. "Capturing Willingness to Pay and Its Determinants for Improved Solid Waste Management," PIDE-Working Papers 2014:110, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    15. Benno Torgler & María A.García-Valiñas & Alison Macintyre, 2007. "Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect," CREMA Working Paper Series 2008-01, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    16. Rikke Søgaard & Jes Lindholt & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2012. "Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 397-405, November.
    17. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    18. D. Gyrd‐Hansen & T. Kjær & J. S. Nielsen, 2012. "Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 101-112, February.
    19. Leonardo Becchetti & Furio Camillo Rosati, 2007. "Global Social Preferences and the Demand for Socially Responsible Products: Empirical Evidence from a Pilot Study on Fair Trade Consumers," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 807-836, May.
    20. Kaczmarski, Jesse I., 2022. "Public support for community microgrid services," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).

    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.