Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults

Hannah Blair; Kieran Higgins

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17

| Peer-Reviewed

Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults

Hannah Blair, Kieran Higgins

Published in Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 5)

Received: 24 September 2020 Accepted: 13 October 2020 Published: 20 October 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Unlike many other countries, Northern Ireland residents do not pay separate water charges and there has been significant political and social controversy about their introduction. Therefore, this paper explores how Northern Ireland residents value access to clean, safe drinking water. Using the open-ended contingent valuation method, 205 adults were asked to provide their annual willingness-to-pay to maintain their current level of service provision, their willingness-to-accept to have it taken away, and their willingness-to-give to ensure similar service provision in a developing country. The results show that the value of clean, safe drinking water to Northern Irish adults is £120 per year, far less than both the real cost of provision, or the nominal amount paid through other combined charging instruments, demonstrating that said level of access to water is significantly undervalued by the Northern Irish people. Education levels and gender were found to be statistically significant predictors of willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept, respectively. Participants appeared to value their own access slightly more than that of people in developing countries, but not significantly more. The protest zeros observed throughout this study identified participants’ resistance to change. The results suggest introducing water charges in NI will continue to be a fraught process, with significant difficulty accepting rates set.

Published in	Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17
Page(s)	186-194
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), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Northern Ireland, Water Charges, Contingent Valuation Method, Willingness-to-pay, Willingness-to-accept, Willingness-to-give

References

[1]	Northern Ireland Water, 2019. Delivering What Matters: Annual Report 2018/19. Northern Ireland Water Limited. Belfast, Northern Ireland. Viewed: 27 January 2020. Available at: https://www.niwater.com/annual-report-2019/
[2]	BBC News. 2007. Why doesn’t Northern Ireland have water bills? Who, What, Why? BBC News Magazine. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6498983.stm Accessed: 3/2/2020.
[3]	McAdam, N., 2016. SF and DUP unite to prevent introduction of water charges in Northern Ireland. Belfast Telegraph. Available at: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/sf-and-dup-unite-to-prevent-introduction-of-water-charges-in-northern-ireland-35050248.html Accessed: 3/2/2020.
[4]	McKibbin, D., 2010. Water Pricing in Europe. Research and Library Service Briefing Note 91/11. Northern Ireland Assembly. Belfast, Northern Ireland. Viewed 03 February 2020. Available at: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2011/regional-development/9111.pdf
[5]	European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000: Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, 327 (1), pp. 12–13.
[6]	Lazaridou, D. and Michailidis, A., 2020. Valuing users’ willingness to pay for improved water quality in the context of the water framework directive. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27 (5), pp. 424-434.
[7]	Global Water Intelligence, 2019. Water and Wastewater Tariffs by Country. The List, 20 (9).
[8]	MacGuill, D., 2016. FactCheck: Does every other country in Europe have water charges? The Journal. Available at: https://www.thejournal.ie/what-countries-in-europe-have-water-charges-facts-3002075-Oct2016/ Accessed: 3/2/2020
[9]	Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. (2005) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, 4th edn., Washington, D. C.: Resources for the Future.
[10]	Whittington, D., Briscoe, J., Mu, X. and Barron, W., 1990. Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: A case study of the use of contingent valuation surveys in southern Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38 (2), pp. 293-311.
[11]	Casey, J. F., Kahn, J. R. and Rivas, A., 2006. Willingness to pay for improved water service in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Ecological Economics, 58 (2), pp. 365-372.
[12]	Brouwer, R., 2008. The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51 (5), pp. 597-614.
[13]	Ramajo-Hernández, J. and del Saz-Salazar, S., 2012. Estimating the non-market benefits of water quality improvement for a case study in Spain: A contingent valuation approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 22 (1), pp. 47-59.
[14]	Buckley, C., Howley, P., O'Donoghue, C. and Kilgarriff, P. 2016. Willingness to pay for achieving good status across rivers in the Republic of Ireland. The Economic and Social Review, 47 (3), pp. 425-445.
[15]	Vásques, W. Mazumder, P. Hernández-Arce, J and Berrens, R. 2009. Willingness to pay for safe drinking water: Evidence from Parral, Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management. 90 (11), pp. 2291-3400.
[16]	Sapienza, P. Zingales, L. and Maestripieri, D. 2009. Gender Difference in Financial Risk Aversion and Career Choices are Affected by Testosterone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. 106 (36), pp. 15268-15273.
[17]	Wondium, S. and Bekele, W. (2012) 'Determinants of individual willingness to pay for quality water supply: the case of Wonji Shoa Sugar Estate, Ethiopia ', in Pepper, D. W. & Brebbia, C. A. (ed.) Water and Society. Southampton, Boston: WIT Press, pp. 59-72.
[18]	Surendran, A. and Sekar, C. 2010. An economic analysis of willingness to pay (WTP) for conserving the biodiversity. International Journal of Social Economics, 37 (8), pp. 637-648.
[19]	Kayaga, S., Calvert, J. and Sansom, K. 2003. Paying for water services: effects of household characteristics. Utilities Policy, 11 (3), pp. 123-132.
[20]	Sharma, G., 2017. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 3 (7), pp. 749-752.
[21]	Rowley, J. 2014. Designing and using research questionnaires. Management Research Review, 37 (3), pp. 308-330.
[22]	Etikan, I., Alkassim, R. and Abubakar, S., 2016. Comparison of snowball sampling and sequential sampling technique. Biometrics and Biostatistics International Journal, 3 (1), pp. 6-7.
[23]	Emerson, R. W. 2015. Convenience Sample, Random Sampling and Snowball Sampling: How does Sampling Affect the Validity of Research? Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 109 (2), pp. 164-168.
[24]	Kayam, O. and Hirsch, T., 2012. Using social media networks to conduct questionnaire based research in social studies case study: Family Language Policy. Journal of Sociological Research, 3 (2), pp. 57-67.
[25]	Desai, S. C. and Reimers, S., 2019. Comparing the use of open and closed questions for Web-based measures of the continued-influence effect. Behaviour Research Methods, 51 (3), pp. 1426-1440.
[26]	Alberini, A. and Cooper, J., 2000. Applications of the contingent valuation method in developing countries: A survey, FAO Economic and Social Development Paper, no. 146. Rome, Italy. Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
[27]	Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K. and Covich, A., 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 33 (1), pp. 103-117.
[28]	Rankin, J. and Robinson, A., 2018. Accounting for protest zeros in contingent valuation studies: A review of literature. HEG Working Paper, No. 18-01, Norwich: University of East Anglia, Health Economics Group (HEG).
[29]	Grammatikopoulou, I., Olsen, S. B. and Pouta, E., 2012. Does exclusion of protest zeros and warm-glow bidders cause selection bias in Contingent Valuation?: An empirical case study in a Natura 2000 wetland area. European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
[30]	Bennett, B., 2017. Logically fallacious: the ultimate collection of over 300 logical fallacies (Academic Edition). Massachusetts: EBookIt.com.
[31]	World Health Organisation & UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, 2019. Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene (2000-2017). Special Focus on Inequalities. New York. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization.
[32]	Fonta, W. M., Ichoku, H. E. and Kabubo-Mariara, J., 2010. The effect of protest zeros on estimates of willingness to pay in healthcare contingent valuation analysis. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 8 (4), pp. 225-237.
[33]	Yarnold, P. R., 2019. Regression vs. Novometric Analysis Predicting Income Based on Education. Optimal Data Analysis, 8, pp. 81-83.
[34]	Bieler, A., 2020. Fighting for public water: The first successful European Citizens’ Initiative, “Water and sanitation are a human right”. Interface: A Journal For and About Social Movements, 9 (1), pp. 300-326.
[35]	Doorn, N., 2017. Allocating responsibility for environmental risks: A comparative analysis of examples from water governance. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 13 (2), pp. 371-375.
[36]	Wieland, A., Sundali, J., Kemmelmeier, M. and Sarin, R., 2014. Gender differences in the endowment effect: Women pay less, but won't accept less. Judgment & Decision Making, 9 (6), pp. 558-571.
[37]	Hon-Snir, S., Kudryavtsev, A. and Cohen, G., 2012. Stock market investors: Who is more rational, and who relies on intuition. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4 (5), pp. 56-72.
[38]	Baston, C. D. (2011) Altruism in Humans, Oxford, UK: Oxford Scholarship Online.
[39]	Lusk, J. L., Nilsson, T. and Foster, K., 2007. Public preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environmental and Resource Economics, 36 (4), pp. 499-521.
[40]	Schmidt, J. and Bijmolt, T. H., 2020. Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: A meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 (3), pp. 499-518.
[41]	Andreoni, J., 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100, pp. 464-477.
[42]	Massarutto, A., Marangon, F., Troiano, S. and Favot, M., 2019. Moral duty, warm glow or self-interest? A choice experiment study on motivations for domestic garbage sorting in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, pp. 916-923.
[43]	Bartholomew, J. 2015. Easy Virtue. The Spectator. Available at: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/easy-virtue Accessed: 10/7/2020.
[44]	Georgantzís, N. and Navarro-Martínez, D., 2010. Understanding the WTA–WTP gap: Attitudes, feelings, uncertainty and personality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31 (6), pp. 895-907.
[45]	Thaler, R., 1980. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 1 (1), pp. 39-60.
[46]	Qin, B., 2019. Endowment effect and the gap between WTP and WTA. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
[47]	Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (4), pp. 1039-1061.
[48]	Koetse, M. J. and Brouwer, R., 2016. Reference dependence effects on WTA and WTP value functions and their disparity. Environmental and Resource Economics, 65 (4), pp. 723-745.
[49]	Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (2013) 'Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk', in Maclean, L. C. & Ziemba, W. T. (ed.) Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision-Making: Part I. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 99-127.
[50]	Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. Y., Hayes, D. J. and Kliebenstein, J. B., 1994. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. The American Economic Review, 84 (1) pp. 255-270.
[51]	Couper, M. P., Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M. and Winter, J., 2007. Noncoverage and nonresponse in an Internet survey. Social Science Research, 36 (1), pp. 131-148.
[52]	Lozar Manfreda, K., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. 2008. Web Surveys Versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50 (1), pp. 79–104.
[53]	Harrison, G. W. and Rutström, E. E., 2008. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1, pp. 752-767.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Hannah Blair, Kieran Higgins. (2020). Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults. Social Sciences, 9(5), 186-194. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Hannah Blair; Kieran Higgins. Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9(5), 186-194. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Hannah Blair, Kieran Higgins. Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults. Soc Sci. 2020;9(5):186-194. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17,
  author = {Hannah Blair and Kieran Higgins},
  title = {Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {5},
  pages = {186-194},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20200905.17},
  abstract = {Unlike many other countries, Northern Ireland residents do not pay separate water charges and there has been significant political and social controversy about their introduction. Therefore, this paper explores how Northern Ireland residents value access to clean, safe drinking water. Using the open-ended contingent valuation method, 205 adults were asked to provide their annual willingness-to-pay to maintain their current level of service provision, their willingness-to-accept to have it taken away, and their willingness-to-give to ensure similar service provision in a developing country. The results show that the value of clean, safe drinking water to Northern Irish adults is £120 per year, far less than both the real cost of provision, or the nominal amount paid through other combined charging instruments, demonstrating that said level of access to water is significantly undervalued by the Northern Irish people. Education levels and gender were found to be statistically significant predictors of willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept, respectively. Participants appeared to value their own access slightly more than that of people in developing countries, but not significantly more. The protest zeros observed throughout this study identified participants’ resistance to change. The results suggest introducing water charges in NI will continue to be a fraught process, with significant difficulty accepting rates set.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults
AU  - Hannah Blair
AU  - Kieran Higgins
Y1  - 2020/10/20
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 186
EP  - 194
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17
AB  - Unlike many other countries, Northern Ireland residents do not pay separate water charges and there has been significant political and social controversy about their introduction. Therefore, this paper explores how Northern Ireland residents value access to clean, safe drinking water. Using the open-ended contingent valuation method, 205 adults were asked to provide their annual willingness-to-pay to maintain their current level of service provision, their willingness-to-accept to have it taken away, and their willingness-to-give to ensure similar service provision in a developing country. The results show that the value of clean, safe drinking water to Northern Irish adults is £120 per year, far less than both the real cost of provision, or the nominal amount paid through other combined charging instruments, demonstrating that said level of access to water is significantly undervalued by the Northern Irish people. Education levels and gender were found to be statistically significant predictors of willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept, respectively. Participants appeared to value their own access slightly more than that of people in developing countries, but not significantly more. The protest zeros observed throughout this study identified participants’ resistance to change. The results suggest introducing water charges in NI will continue to be a fraught process, with significant difficulty accepting rates set.
VL  - 9
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Hannah Blair

Gibson Institute for Land, Food & Environment, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Kieran Higgins

Gibson Institute for Land, Food & Environment, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Hannah Blair, Kieran Higgins. (2020). Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults. Social Sciences, 9(5), 186-194. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Hannah Blair; Kieran Higgins. Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9(5), 186-194. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Hannah Blair, Kieran Higgins. Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults. Soc Sci. 2020;9(5):186-194. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17,
  author = {Hannah Blair and Kieran Higgins},
  title = {Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {5},
  pages = {186-194},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20200905.17},
  abstract = {Unlike many other countries, Northern Ireland residents do not pay separate water charges and there has been significant political and social controversy about their introduction. Therefore, this paper explores how Northern Ireland residents value access to clean, safe drinking water. Using the open-ended contingent valuation method, 205 adults were asked to provide their annual willingness-to-pay to maintain their current level of service provision, their willingness-to-accept to have it taken away, and their willingness-to-give to ensure similar service provision in a developing country. The results show that the value of clean, safe drinking water to Northern Irish adults is £120 per year, far less than both the real cost of provision, or the nominal amount paid through other combined charging instruments, demonstrating that said level of access to water is significantly undervalued by the Northern Irish people. Education levels and gender were found to be statistically significant predictors of willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept, respectively. Participants appeared to value their own access slightly more than that of people in developing countries, but not significantly more. The protest zeros observed throughout this study identified participants’ resistance to change. The results suggest introducing water charges in NI will continue to be a fraught process, with significant difficulty accepting rates set.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Exploring the Value of Clean and Safe Drinking Water to Northern Irish Adults
AU  - Hannah Blair
AU  - Kieran Higgins
Y1  - 2020/10/20
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 186
EP  - 194
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200905.17
AB  - Unlike many other countries, Northern Ireland residents do not pay separate water charges and there has been significant political and social controversy about their introduction. Therefore, this paper explores how Northern Ireland residents value access to clean, safe drinking water. Using the open-ended contingent valuation method, 205 adults were asked to provide their annual willingness-to-pay to maintain their current level of service provision, their willingness-to-accept to have it taken away, and their willingness-to-give to ensure similar service provision in a developing country. The results show that the value of clean, safe drinking water to Northern Irish adults is £120 per year, far less than both the real cost of provision, or the nominal amount paid through other combined charging instruments, demonstrating that said level of access to water is significantly undervalued by the Northern Irish people. Education levels and gender were found to be statistically significant predictors of willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept, respectively. Participants appeared to value their own access slightly more than that of people in developing countries, but not significantly more. The protest zeros observed throughout this study identified participants’ resistance to change. The results suggest introducing water charges in NI will continue to be a fraught process, with significant difficulty accepting rates set.
VL  - 9
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download