Abstract
In this paper, we explore the use of choice modelling for obtaining implicit prices for attributes associated with changes in the reliability of household water services. While not often estimated in practice, the collection of information about willingness to accept compensation is relevant for utilities as customers often have implicit or explicit property rights for particular levels of customer service. Given ageing infrastructure in many cities, maintaining customer service standards requires large capital expenditures. It may be more economically efficient to allow standards to decline in some areas and compensate consumers. Therefore it is useful to understand the value of attributes of water service provision using willingness to accept and how this differs from willingness to pay. We therefore estimate both willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures, and find that respondents value a larger range of attributes using the willingness to accept approach.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bateman I, Munro A, Rhodes B, Starmer C, Sugden R (1997) A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Q J Econ 112:479–505
Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT, Cambridge
Bishop R, Heberlein T (1979) Measuring values of extramarket goods: are direct measures biased? Am J Agric Econ 61:926–930
Bunch D (1991) Estimability in the multinomial probit model. Transp Res B 25B(1):1–12
Burn L, Davis P, Hussain O, Jarrett R, Marksjö B, Rahilly M, Schiller T, Tucker S, Veevers A, Young M (2002) The cost of customer preference: the development of a pipeline asset risk management system—PARMS. Project Report, CSIRO, Clayton
Chen H, Cosslett S (1998) Environmental quality preference and benefit estimation in multinomial probit models: a simulation approach. Am J Agric Econ 80:512–520
Constantine A, Darroch J, Miller R (1996) Predicting underground pipeline failure. Water 23:9–10
Cooper J (2003) A joint framework for analysis of agri-environmental payment programs. Am J Agric Econ 85(4):976–987
Cummings R, Brookshire D, Schulze W (1986) Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa
Daganzo C (1979) Multinomial probit: the theory and its application to demand forecasting. Academic, New York
Genius M, Hatzaki E, Kouroichelaki E, Kouvakis G, Nikiforaki S, Tasagarakis K (2008) Evaluating consumers’ willingness to pay for improved potable water quality and quantity. Water Resour Manage 22:1825–1834
Gerard K, Shanahan M, Louviere J (2003) Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: a pilot study of breast screening participation. Appl Econ 35(9):1073–1085
Goett A, Hudson K, Train K (2000) Customers’ choice among retail energy suppliers: the willingness-to-pay for service attributes. Energy J 21:1–28
Gordon J, Chapman R, Blamey R (2001) Assessing options for the canberra water supply. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Hanemann M (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? Am Econ Rev 81:635–647
Hatton MacDonald D, Barnes M, Bennett J, Morrison M, Young M (2005) Willingness to pay for higher customer service standards in urban water supply. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:719–728
Hausman J, Wise D (1978) A conditional probit model or qualitative choice: discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous preferences. Econometrica 46:403–426
Hensher D (2000) The valuation of commuter travel time savings for car drivers: evaluating alternative model specifications. Transportation 28:101–118
Hensher D, Shore N, Train K (2005a) Household’s willingness to pay for water service attributes. Environ Resour Econ 32:509–531
Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W (2005b) Applied choice analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Horowitz J, McConnell K (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manage 44:426–447
Kahneman D, Knetsch J, Thaler R (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98:1325–1348
Louviere J (2004) Complex statistical choice models: are the assumptions true, and if not, what are the consequences? Working Paper No 04-002, Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC), University of Technology, Sydney
Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice models: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Maddala G (1983) Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Mansfield C (1999) Despairing over disparities: explaining the difference between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Environ Resour Econ 13:219–234
Mitchell R, Carson R (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contigent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future
Morrison M, Nalder C (2009) Willingness to pay for improved quality of electricity supply across business type and location. Energy J 30:117–134
Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, Louviere J (2002) Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agric Econ 84:161–170
Plott C, Zeiler K (2005) The willingness to pay—willingness to accept gap, the “Endowment Effect,” subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Am Econ Rev 95:530–545
Plott C, Zeiler K (2007) Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory? Am Econ Rev 97:1449–1466
Raje D, Dhobe P, Deshpande A (2002) Consumer’s willingness to pay for more municipal supplied water: a case study. Ecol Econ 42:391–400
Randall A, Stoll J (1980) Consumer’s surplus in commodity space. Am Econ Rev 70:449–455
Rowe R, D’Arge R, Brookshire D (1980) An experiment on the economic value of visibility. J Environ Econ Manage 7:1–19
Severin V (2001) Comparing statistical and respondent efficiency in choice experiments. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Discipline of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business, The University of Sydney (August)
Shogren J, Shin S, Hayes D, Kliebenstein J (1994) Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Am Econ Rev 84:255–270
Speers A, Burn S, Hatton MacDonald D, Nancarrow B, Syme G, Young M (2002) Determining customer service levels—overarching report, CSIRO Urban Water Report. http://www.clw.csiro.au/research/society/peru/publications/Overarching_Report_20020718.pdf
Swait J (2006) Advanced choice models. In: Kanninen B (ed) Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies: a common sense guide to theory and practice. Kluwer, Boston
Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q J Econ 106:1039–1061
WSAA (2000) WSAA facts. Water Services Association of Australia, Melbourne
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper is not in submission elsewhere in identical or similar form.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D. & Barnes, M.B. Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept Compensation for Changes in Urban Water Customer Service Standards. Water Resour Manage 24, 3145–3158 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9599-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9599-7