Post on 13-Apr-2017
1
Valuing Safe Drinking Water Supply
in Rural Myanmar
M 046468
Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima University
August 1, 2006
THI THI KHIN
2
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
(Application of Contingent Valuation in Rural Myanmar)
3. Results
4. Conclusion
3
Water Supply in Myanmar
Background of the Issue
Drinking water sources (mainly water ponds) are often unprotected in rural Myanmar:
- Poor quality: polluted with bacteria and viruses
- Causing water-borne diseases such as Diarrhea, Hepatitis, Typhoid and Cholera
Protecting and upgrading drinking water supply is much needed to reduce human health risks
1.Introduction
4
1.IntroductionStudy Area
5
1.IntroductionStudy Area
6
Drinking Water Pond in Wet Tsu Village
Photo taken by author on 3/14/2006
1.Introduction
7
Using Hand Pumps in villages
Photo taken by author on 3/14/2006
1.Introduction
8
Objective
Objective: Estimate the economic value of establishing safe drinking water supply in rural part of Myanmar
Valuing the Environment: - Measuring the values of environmental goods (better water/air quality, forest, urban green space and so on)- Costs money and uses up real resources plus overall satisfaction of welfare (utility)
1.Introduction
9
The Use of WaterTable 1. Relationship between GDP per capita and access to Safe Drinking Water Sources in some selected Countries
Source: UN-ESCAP and Human Development Reports
1.Introduction
1990 2002
GDP per capita (US$)
Access water from improved
source (% of total
population)
GDP per capita (US$)
Access water from improved
source (% of total
population)
Malaysia 2,467 - 3,970 95
Thailand 1,562 81 2,028 85
Philippines 725 87 975 85
Indonesia 628 71 806 78
Pakistan 467 83 495 90
Sri Lanka 449 68 812 78
India 382 68 482 86
Myanmar 127 48 202 80
10
Methods for Valuing Environment
Stated Preference
Revealed PreferenceTravel cost
Hedonic Pricing
Contingent Valuation
Conjoint
2.Methodology
11
Previous Studies
Table 2.Previous Studies’ WTPs for Drinking Water
No.
Authors Objectives Study Area
Method WTP per month
1. Memon A. M. and Matsuoka S. (2001)
Estimate the economic benefit of project
Pakistan (Rural Area)
Benefit Transfer, CVM, OLS
(41.42 Rs =0.74 US$) 1.02% of income
2. Dutta V. (2003) To obtain an estimate of the value of urban water supply improvements
Delhi Probit , Logit , CVM
(160.56 Rs =0.23US $)
2.Methodology
12
Previous Studies
No.
Authors Objectives Study Area
Method WTP per month
3. Mones de Oca Soto Gloria, Bateman J. I., Tinch R. and Moffatt G Peter (2002)
1.Maintenance 2.Improvement of water supply changes
Mexico City
CVM, Probit Model
1) 123 pesos(10.76US$ )(2.85% of income 2) 142 pesos (12.42US$)( 5.27% of income
4. Nam K.P. and Hung Son V. T. (2003)
To improve water services in Ho Chi Minh City
Ho Chi Minh City
Multinomial logit , CVM and CM
Piped 3.5% incomeNon-piped 4.1%-4.6%
Table 2.Previous Studies’ WTPs for Drinking Water
2.Methodology
13
Survey Outline
- Survey period: March 9 - 16, 2006
- Survey area: 4 villages in Myanmar delta region
- 660 households (return rate: 71%)
- Door to door distribution questionnaires
- Preliminary pilot survey in the region
Application of Contingent Valuation in Rural Myanmar
2.Methodology
14
QuestionnaireQ1. Suppose, there is a drinking water supply project in your area namely “ Shwe
Yay Cho Ya Shi Yet Project”. This will provide you safe drinking water from tanks or tube wells and you can get the whole year. It is expensive for installation of this equipment but you don’t need to pay construction and installation cost due to the special project of the Government. But you should contribute cooperative fund as monthly charge for operation, maintenance and management cost to get long term benefit.
a) Upgrade your health condition by avoiding water related diseases
b) Time and labor saving to fetch water and you can get extra income by working extra hours
c) Save money for medical cost by improving drinking water quality
If the monthly fee for this fund is 200 Kyats per household, would you be willing to pay this amount?
Yes No
Q1-1 To whom answered “Yes” in Q1, Q1-2 To whom answered “No” iQ1, if the fee is 400 Kyats, would if the fee is cheaper 100 Kyats, would you be willing to pay the fee? you be willing to pay the fee?
2.Methodology
15
Table 3.Selected Socio-economic Characteristics of Ngaputaw Township, Study Area and Sample (2006)
Source: Township Peace and Development Council Office and Survey
Township Study Area Sample
Population 225,058 4,904 2,329
Family Size 5.1 4.68 4.96
Number of Households 54,060 1,046 468
Average monthly income
30,000 (Kyats)(31.58 US$)
27,500(Kyats)(28.94 US$)
25,000(Kyats)(26.32 US$)
Number of under 12 years children 19% 27% 27%
Women 44% 45% 44%
Literacy rate 100 100 100
Empirical Study 2.Methodology
16
Estimation of WTP
The basic regression equation is:
Pr(x): Probability for choosing improved water services
errorINCCHILUAGEQUANBIDx 543210 10)Pr(
3.Results
BID = Hypothetical amounts of monthly fees for proposed project (log form)
QUAN = Water quantity drunk per day (dummy)
AGE = Age in years
U10 CHIL = Number of under 10 years children
INC = Income
17
***P<0.01
Table 4. The Estimated Results of the Double Bounded Logit Model
3.Results
***P<0.01
Variable Coefficient Std. Error
CONS 8.02 *** 0.88Log of bid -1.62 *** 0.10Log of income 0.16 *** 0.05Water Consumption 0.21 0.14Age 0.44 0.43Number of U10 child dummy -0.22 0.14
n 313χ2 598.16
Median WTP 450Mean WTP 610
18
The Estimated WTP
(monthly per household)
-Median WTP : 450 kyats (0.47 U.S. Dollars)
- % of the mean household income: 1.84%
3.Results
19
-The estimated benefit (running cost only) for the study area (4 villages) is
470,700 (kyats) = 495.47 (US$ ) per month or 5,648,400(kyats) = 5,945.68 (US$) per year
- Estimated running cost would be 5276 US$ per year(source: Ueda Toyotaka, 2004)
- Benefit-Cost ratio is 1.12
The Estimated Benefit & Cost
(in money term)
3.Results
20
- The estimated WTP is consistent with existing studies (in terms of the share of income)
- WTP results can show the respondents are favor to the
proposed project, they are eager to contribute to the
operation and maintenance cost for proposed project even
though their incomes are low
Conclusion4.Conclusion
21
Conclusion
-The estimated WTP may not be sufficient to all the
costs necessary to establish and maintain safe drinking
water
-Initial cost should be supplied from external sources
( e.g ODA or other financial assistance)
4.Conclusion
22
ReferencesDutta,V.“Public Support for Water Supply Reforms in Unplanned Sector: Empirical Evidence from an Urban Water Utility”, GDN Medal Award Paper, 7th GDN Annual Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2005.
Freeman III A.M. “The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theories and Methods”. Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 2003.
Nam Khanh Pham and Hung Son Vo Tran, “Households Demand for Improved Water Services in Ho Chi Minh City: A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modeling estimates”. Research report EEPSEA, 2003.
Haab T. and McConnell K.E, “Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The econometrics of non-market valuation”, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2003.
Memon M.A. and Matsuoka S. “Benefit Transfer Function to Estimate WTP for Rural Water Supply in Pakistan”, Journal of International Development Studies, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 101-119, 2001.
Whittington. Dale, “The Challenge of Demand Assessment in Pro-Poor Infrastructure projects” PPIAF/ADB Conference on Infrastructure Development – Private Solutions for the Poor: The Asian Perspective, 2002.