Preferences for water treatment provision in rural India: comparing communal, pay-per-use, and labour-for-water schemes

ABSTRACT

Using a contingent valuation survey, this research identifies villagers’ willingness to pay towards the operation and maintenance of water treatment plants in 11 villages in Maharashtra with existing facilities. Preferences were elicited using three different payment mechanisms: a monthly fee, labour (time) contributions, and a pay-per-container mechanism. There was little support for the pay-per-container scheme (51% stated positive willingness to pay for this option), but the communal mechanisms were more popular (86.7% and 87.3%). We conclude that the long-term viability of water treatment in Maharashtra is weak, as few scenarios provide adequate revenue to properly operate and maintain the infrastructure.

KEYWORDS:

• Fluoride
• contingent valuation
• India
• pay-per-use
• water treatment

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the help, assistance and support provided by the Project Assistants and Scientists at the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute in India. We also acknowledge Dr Kapil Chandrayan of the Vidarbha Development Board and our research assistant, Isha Chaknalwar, for their support and assistance in the field. Data collected as part of this research and used in this analysis is curated by and available through Columbia University in accordance with IRB guidelines (protocol IRB-AAAN3003). Please contact the Columbia Water Center for data access.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2020.1720137.

Notes

1. There are different methods of elicitation in contingent valuation, the main ones being dichotomous choice and payment ladders. The payment ladder approach has advantages over dichotomous choice in being less susceptible to anchoring and ‘yea-saying’ (Champ, Boyle, & Brown, 2003; Soeteman, van Exel, & Bobinac, 2017) and cognitively less demanding (Ready, Navrud, & Dubourg, 2001).

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by a Columbia University Cross-Cutting Initiative Grant and a Columbia University Earth Institute Postdoctoral Fellowship. Additional funding was provided to Dr Alfredo by a Fulbright-Nehru Postdoctoral Scholarship.