Are rural residents willing to pay enough to improve drinking water quality?

被引:13
作者
Cho, YS [1 ]
Easter, KW
McCann, LMJ
Homans, F
机构
[1] Korea Univ, Dept Food & Resource Econ, Seoul 136701, South Korea
[2] Univ Minnesota, Dept Appl Econ, St Paul, MN 55108 USA
[3] Univ Missouri, Dept Agr Econ, Columbia, MO 65211 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION | 2005年 / 41卷 / 03期
关键词
water policy; regulation; decision making; drinking water quality; economic valuation; sulfate; iron; rural communities;
D O I
10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03767.x
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The concentrations of iron and sulfate in community water supplies are a concern for a number of areas in southwestern Minnesota. This study used the contingent valuation method to determine how much consumers would be willing to pay to improve their drinking water quality. On average, individuals were willing to pay US$5.25 per month (in 1995 U.S. dollars) to reduce the level of iron and US$4.33 per month to reduce the level of sulfate in their water to the USEPAs secondary standards for drinking water quality. Respondents with negative perceptions of their drinking water quality were willing to pay more to improve water quality. The aggregate annual willingness to pay (WTP) for all consumers in community water systems in southwestern Minnesota that were out of compliance with water quality standards were estimated to be US$2.4 million and US$2.0 million (in 1995 dollars) for reducing the levels of iron and sulfate, respectively. Yet the total WTP of consumers who use small community water systems may not be enough to pay the full cost of providing improved water in those systems. Economies of scale in water treatment and difficulties in financing improvements mean that technical innovation, government assistance, or institutional changes may be needed to improve water quality in these areas.
引用
收藏
页码:729 / 740
页数:12
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], BOTTL WAT PUR DRINK
[2]   CONCEPTS AND MEASURES OF THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL-QUALITY - A REVIEW [J].
BERGSTROM, JC .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 1990, 31 (03) :215-228
[3]   WELFARE MEASUREMENTS USING CONTINGENT VALUATION - A COMPARISON OF TECHNIQUES [J].
BOYLE, KJ ;
BISHOP, RC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1988, 70 (01) :20-28
[4]  
CALLAHAN NV, 2000, ONCE MONOPOLISTIC WA
[5]   OLS VERSUS ML ESTIMATION OF NON-MARKET RESOURCE VALUES WITH PAYMENT CARD INTERVAL DATA [J].
CAMERON, TA ;
HUPPERT, DD .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1989, 17 (03) :230-246
[6]  
Carson R. T., 1989, Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method
[7]  
CARSON RT, 1984, QE8508
[8]  
CLARK RM, 1987, J AM WATER WORKS ASS, V79, P57
[9]   WILDLIFE VALUATION - COLLECTIVE GOOD ASPECT OF HUNTING [J].
COCHEBA, DJ ;
LANGFORD, WA .
LAND ECONOMICS, 1978, 54 (04) :490-504
[10]  
Cochran, 1977, SAMPLING TECHNIQUES