How valuable are environmental health interventions? Evaluation of water and sanitation programmes in India
Subhrendu K Pattanayak, Christine Poulos, Jui-Chen Yang & Sumeet Patil
Volume 88, Number 7, July 2010, 535-542
Table 1. Selected valuation studies of water supply based on observational cross sectional data
| Study | Design | Summary of resultsa |
|---|---|---|
| Briscoe et al. (1990), Brazil |
Contingent valuation | WTP for improved service = 15.5–18.1 if improved services available WTP for private tap = 8–8.5 in areas if improved services not yet available |
| Bohm et al. (1993), Philippines |
Contingent valuation | WTP for improved service = 6.2 if you have private tap connection WTP for private tap = 3.5 or 5.7 if you use a well or a stand post |
| Altaf et al. (1993), Pakistan |
Contingent valuation | WTP for improved water service = 2.7–13.4 WTP for private tap = 3.7 if you do and 12.4 if you do not have a tap WTP for public tap = 7.9 if you do not have a tap |
| Whittington et al. (1993), Ghana |
Contingent valuation | WTP for private tap = 5.4 |
| Griffin et al. (1995), India |
Contingent valuation | WTP for improved service = 6.4 if you have private tap connection WTP for private tap = 2.5 if you do not have a private tap, but neighbourhood has taps WTP for private tap = 1.4 if neither you nor your neighbourhood has private taps |
| Whittington et al. (2002), Nepal |
Contingent valuation | WTP for improved water supply = 57 if you have a private tap WTP for private tap = 46.5 if you do not have a private tap WTP for shared tap = 12.7 if you do not have a private tap |
| Gunatilake et al. (Forthcoming), Sri Lanka |
Contingent valuation | WTP for improved water supply = 14.9 if you have a private tap WTP for private tap = 4.2 if you do not have a private tap |
| Rosado et al. (2006), Brazil |
Contingent valuation | WTP for improved or new water connection = 4.78 |
| Whittington et al. (1990), Kenya |
Coping costs | Cost of buying from vendors = 30.2 Cost of collecting from kiosks = 13.7 Cost of collecting from open wells = 8.2 |
| Whittington et al. (1990), Nigeria |
Coping costs | Cost of buying from vendors = 21.4–34.2 |
| Pattanayak et al. (2005), Nepal |
Coping costs | Cost of collecting, treating, storing, buying = 12 (have piped connection) Cost of collecting, treating, storing, buying = 11 (lack piped connection) |
| Alam & Pattanayak (2009), Bangladesh |
Coping costs | Cost of collecting, treating, storing, buying = 4.9 |
| Anselin et al. (2008), India |
Hedonic | House rent premium for improved piped water service in Bangalore = 10 House rent premium for improved piped water service in Bhopal = 4.3 |
| Komives (2003), Panama |
Hedonic | House rent premium for in-house piped water = 202 in Panama City (formal settlement) House rent premium for in-house piped water = 41.7 in Panama City (informal settlement) House rent premium for yard tap = 14.6 in Panama City (formal settlement) House rent premium for yard tap = 22.9 in Panama City (informal settlement) |
| Komives (2003), Ecuador |
Hedonic | House rent premium for in-house piped water = 85 in Quito (have access to network) House rent premium for yard tap = 21.3 in Quito (have access to network) House rent premium for in-house piped water = 49.6 in Guayaquil House rent premium for yard tap = 46 in Guayaquil |
| North & Griffin (1993), Philippines |
Hedonic | House rent premium for in-house piped water = 11.4 (high-income) House rent premium for in-house piped water = 13.1 (middle-income) House rent premium for in-house piped water = 8.2 (low-income) House rent premium for deep well or yard tap = 5.1 (high-income) House rent premium for deep well or yard tap = 5.5 (high-income) |
WTP, willingness to pay.
a All values reported are adjusted for purchasing power parity and inflated to 2007 United States dollars.20–22
b These values are only adjusted for inflation because purchasing power parity was not available for the study year.