Despite recent improvements in ensuring access to safe drinking water, a huge number of people still do not have access to that safe water. Bangladesh achieved laudable success in achieving Millennium Development Goals including extension of water supply and sanitation coverage. The country would face more challenges as the number of semi-urban and urban dwellers grows each day, and grows at a faster rate. It is always difficult for a country like Bangladesh to become proactive to any apprehending challenges due to her limited financial strength. However, cost recovery approaches (CRA) for water supply services could reduce the burden. A typical CRA intends to recover the cost of investment (often only operating cost) through charging additional bills for the utility usages. Applicability of CRA can be determined by estimating the consumer’s willingness to pay (WTP) for the intended intervension. WTP is a widely used economic tool to assess the economic value of of non-marketed commodities. This study investigated the consumers’ WTP for an improved water supply system in a semi-urban area of Bangladesh. The study adopted a Contingent Valuation Method to estimate consumer’s WTP for animproved water supply system as compared that of present condition. A total of 396 out of 11605 households were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Presently, the residents (28% of the total) receive supply water twice a day and only 2 hours of running tap water with complains of high iron and arsenic content. A household consumes about 421 liters of water per day and pays only BDT 100 per month. About 65% of the surveyed households expressed their WTP for a safe and uninterrupted water supply. The average stated WTP is BDT 87.25 (± 91.92) per month in addition to the present water utility charges. The stated amount is only 0.49% of their monthly household income (BDT 18058) and less than 25% of the money (BDT 365.79/month) they currently spend for collection and purification of water for household consumption. Considering a present water coverage (28%) and revenue collection efficiency (80%), the stated extra money could earn about 150% of the present annual operation and maintenance cost.
| Published in | American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics (Volume 2, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.14 |
| Page(s) | 116-122 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Contingent Valuation Method, Willingness to Pay, Water Supply, Water Security, Water Policy
| [1] | K. Seip andJ. Strand, “Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment,” Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 2, pp. 91–106, 1992. |
| [2] | B. Solomon, and N. Johnson, “Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol,” Ecological Economics, vol. 68, pp. 2137–2144, 2009, doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.010 |
| [3] | L. Venkatachalam, “The contingent valuation method: a review,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 24, pp. 89-124, 2004. |
| [4] | J. Loomis, P. Kent, L. Strange, K. Fausch,A. Covich, “Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey,” Ecological Economics, vol. 33, pp. 103–117, 2000. |
| [5] | E. Polyzou, N. Jones, K. I. Evangelinos, C. P. Halvadakis, “Willingness to pay for drinking water quality improvement and the influence of social capital,” The Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 40, pp. 74-80, 2011, doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.06.010. |
| [6] | M. Genius, E. Hatzaki, E. M. Kouromichelaki,et al., “Evaluating Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Potable Water Quality and Quantity,” Water Resour Manage, vol. 22, pp. 1825, 2008, doi:10.1007/s11269-008-9255-7. |
| [7] | M. J. Um, S. J. Kwak and T. Y. Kim, “Estimating Willingness to Pay for Improved Drinking Water Quality Using Averting Behavior Method with Perception Measure,” Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 21, pp. 285, 2002, doi:10.1023/A:1014537330423. |
| [8] | H. Gunatilake, M. Tachiiri, 2012, Willingness to Pay and Inclusive Tariff Designs for Improved Water Supply Services in Khulna, Bangladesh,: Asian Development Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/11540/1388. |
| [9] | J. Ahmad, B. Goldar, S. Misra, M. Jakariya, 2003, Willingness to pay for arsenic-free, safe drinking water in Bangladesh, The World Bank and BRAC. |
| [10] | J. Ahmad, B. Goldar, S. Misra, “Value of arsenic-free drinking water to rural households in Bangladesh,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 74, pp. 173-185, 2005. |
| [11] | N. I. Khan, B. Roy, H. Yang, “Household's willingness to pay for arsenic safe drinking water in Bangladesh,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 143, pp. 151.161, 2014, doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.04.018. |
| [12] | S. Akter, “Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Safe Drinking Water: A Case Study in Bangladesh,” Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, vol. 5, pp. 85-91, 2006. |
| [13] | M. A. R. Sarker and K. Alam, “Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Services in Rajshahi City, Bangladesh,” Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, vol. 10, pp. 41-49, 2013. |
| [14] | R. Afroz, K. Hanaki, K.Hasegawa-Kurisu, “Willingness to pay for waste management improvement in Dhaka city, Bangladesh,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90, pp. 492-503, 2009, doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.0 12. |
| [15] | M. Sujauddin, S.M.S. Huda and A.T.M. R. Hoque, “Household solid waste characteristics and management in Chittagong, Bangladesh,” Waste Management, vol. 28, pp. 1688-1695, 2008,doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.06.013. |
| [16] | M. K. Alam, 2003, Cleanup of the Buriganga River, Integrating the environment into decision making. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Murdoch University. |
| [17] | DWASA, 2011. Report on social and environmental situation of Dhaka city: Updating/Preparation of Sewerage Master Plan of Dhaka City, Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority, Dhaka, Bangladesh. |
| [18] | WSP, 2009. Bangladesh Water Utilities Data Book, 2006–07, Benchmarking for Improving Water Supply Delivery, Water and Sanitation Program. |
| [19] | S. Akter, “Farmers, willingness to pay for irrigation water under government managed small scale irrigation project in Bangladesh,” Journal of Bangladesh Studies,vol. 9, pp. 21-31, 2007. |
| [20] | S. Akter, “Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Safe Drinking Water: A Case Study in Bangladesh,” Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution,vol. 5, pp. 85-91, 2008. |
| [21] | WHO and UNICEF, 2006, Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Estimates Improved Drinking Water. |
| [22] | D. Chakraborti, M. Rahman, B. Das, M. Murrill, “Status of groundwater arsenic contamination in Bangladesh: A 14-year study report.” Water Research,vol. 44, pp. 5789–5802, 2010. |
| [23] | M. F. Hossain, “Arsenic contamination in Bangladesh-An overview,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 113, 1-16, 2009. |
| [24] | S. G. Mahmud, S. Shamsuddin, M. Ahmed, A. Davison, D. Deere, G. Howard, “Development and implementation of water safety plans for small water supplies in Bangladesh: benefits and lessons learned,” Journal of Water & Health, vol. 5, pp. 585-597, 2007. |
| [25] | M. A. R. Sarker andK. Alam, “Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Services in Rajshahi City, Bangladesh,” Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, vol. 10,pp. 41-49, 2013. |
| [26] | D. V. Raje, P. S. Dhobe, A. W. Deshpande, “Consumer’s willingness to pay more for municipal supplied water: a case study,” Ecological Economics,vol. 42, pp. 391-400, 2002. |
| [27] | M. Haq, U. Mustafa, L. Ahmad, “Household's Willingness to Pay for Safe Drinking Water: A Case Study of Abbottabad District,” The Pakistan Development Review,vol. 46, pp. 1137-1153, 2007. |
| [28] | Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2001, Community series: Manikganj, Dhaka, Bangladesh. |
| [29] | United National Development Program (UNDP), 2006, Human development report, United Nations Development Program. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/ |
| [30] | C. Null, J. G. Hombrados,M. Kremer, R. Meeks, E. Miguel,A. P. Zwane, 2012, Willingness to pay for cleaner water in less developed countries: systematic review of experimental evidence, 3ie Systematic Review 6. London: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). |
| [31] | S. Wendimu and W. Bekele, “Determinants of individual willingness to pay for quality water supply: The case of Wonji Shoa Sugar Estate, Ethiopia,” Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment,vol. 3, pp. 474-480, 2011. |
APA Style
Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman, Khurshed Alam, Rezaul Karim, Molla Karimul Islam. (2017). Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply: A Policy Implications for Future Water Security. American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics, 2(3), 116-122. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.14
ACS Style
Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman; Khurshed Alam; Rezaul Karim; Molla Karimul Islam. Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply: A Policy Implications for Future Water Security. Am. J. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 2(3), 116-122. doi: 10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.14,
author = {Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman and Khurshed Alam and Rezaul Karim and Molla Karimul Islam},
title = {Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply: A Policy Implications for Future Water Security},
journal = {American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics},
volume = {2},
number = {3},
pages = {116-122},
doi = {10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajere.20170203.14},
abstract = {Despite recent improvements in ensuring access to safe drinking water, a huge number of people still do not have access to that safe water. Bangladesh achieved laudable success in achieving Millennium Development Goals including extension of water supply and sanitation coverage. The country would face more challenges as the number of semi-urban and urban dwellers grows each day, and grows at a faster rate. It is always difficult for a country like Bangladesh to become proactive to any apprehending challenges due to her limited financial strength. However, cost recovery approaches (CRA) for water supply services could reduce the burden. A typical CRA intends to recover the cost of investment (often only operating cost) through charging additional bills for the utility usages. Applicability of CRA can be determined by estimating the consumer’s willingness to pay (WTP) for the intended intervension. WTP is a widely used economic tool to assess the economic value of of non-marketed commodities. This study investigated the consumers’ WTP for an improved water supply system in a semi-urban area of Bangladesh. The study adopted a Contingent Valuation Method to estimate consumer’s WTP for animproved water supply system as compared that of present condition. A total of 396 out of 11605 households were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Presently, the residents (28% of the total) receive supply water twice a day and only 2 hours of running tap water with complains of high iron and arsenic content. A household consumes about 421 liters of water per day and pays only BDT 100 per month. About 65% of the surveyed households expressed their WTP for a safe and uninterrupted water supply. The average stated WTP is BDT 87.25 (± 91.92) per month in addition to the present water utility charges. The stated amount is only 0.49% of their monthly household income (BDT 18058) and less than 25% of the money (BDT 365.79/month) they currently spend for collection and purification of water for household consumption. Considering a present water coverage (28%) and revenue collection efficiency (80%), the stated extra money could earn about 150% of the present annual operation and maintenance cost.},
year = {2017}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply: A Policy Implications for Future Water Security AU - Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman AU - Khurshed Alam AU - Rezaul Karim AU - Molla Karimul Islam Y1 - 2017/06/08 PY - 2017 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.14 DO - 10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.14 T2 - American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics JF - American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics JO - American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics SP - 116 EP - 122 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2578-787X UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.14 AB - Despite recent improvements in ensuring access to safe drinking water, a huge number of people still do not have access to that safe water. Bangladesh achieved laudable success in achieving Millennium Development Goals including extension of water supply and sanitation coverage. The country would face more challenges as the number of semi-urban and urban dwellers grows each day, and grows at a faster rate. It is always difficult for a country like Bangladesh to become proactive to any apprehending challenges due to her limited financial strength. However, cost recovery approaches (CRA) for water supply services could reduce the burden. A typical CRA intends to recover the cost of investment (often only operating cost) through charging additional bills for the utility usages. Applicability of CRA can be determined by estimating the consumer’s willingness to pay (WTP) for the intended intervension. WTP is a widely used economic tool to assess the economic value of of non-marketed commodities. This study investigated the consumers’ WTP for an improved water supply system in a semi-urban area of Bangladesh. The study adopted a Contingent Valuation Method to estimate consumer’s WTP for animproved water supply system as compared that of present condition. A total of 396 out of 11605 households were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Presently, the residents (28% of the total) receive supply water twice a day and only 2 hours of running tap water with complains of high iron and arsenic content. A household consumes about 421 liters of water per day and pays only BDT 100 per month. About 65% of the surveyed households expressed their WTP for a safe and uninterrupted water supply. The average stated WTP is BDT 87.25 (± 91.92) per month in addition to the present water utility charges. The stated amount is only 0.49% of their monthly household income (BDT 18058) and less than 25% of the money (BDT 365.79/month) they currently spend for collection and purification of water for household consumption. Considering a present water coverage (28%) and revenue collection efficiency (80%), the stated extra money could earn about 150% of the present annual operation and maintenance cost. VL - 2 IS - 3 ER -
Information
Email: