Household preferences for improved water services in kelantan, malaysia: a choice experiment approach
List of Authors
  • Alias radam , Mahirah kamaludin

Keyword
  • Attribute, choice modelling, Mixed Logit Model, water service, willingness to pay

Abstract
  • The condition of water supply provided to consumers is an important element which influences their health and daily routine. Excellent water services will give consumer’s confidence to consume the water but poor services may endanger the households in many aspects and may tarnish the water company’s reputation. Low water price may limit the water services improvement and upgrading projects. The objective of this study is to estimate household’s willingness to pay using stated preference technique, the Choice Experiment (CE). This technique is employed to assess consumer’s preferences in water service attributes such as water quality (QUAL), water disruption (DIST), Non-Revenue Water (NRW) and water price (PRICE). The Mixed Logit (ML) was applied to derive the households’ marginal value for different attributes of the water services. The findings show that households are willing to contribute more on “water quality” attribute which derives the highest marginal value. The outcomes of this study will form the basis of policy recommendations to improve and enhance current domestic water services to a better level in the future.

Reference
  • 1. Air Kelantan Sdn. Bhd. (AKSB). (2011). Kadar Tarif Air. Research report. Kelantan, Malaysia.
    2. Association of Water and Energy Research Malaysia (AWER). (2011). National Water Services Industry Restructuring – Kelantan State Case Study. Research report.
    3. Kuala Lumpur. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann., M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroghu, E., Pearce, D., Sugden, R. & Swanson, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Technique. London: Edward Elgar.
    4. Cooper, B. & Crase, L. (2008). Waste Water Preferences in Rural Towns across North-east Victoria: A Choice Modelling Approach. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 15(1): 41-50.
    5. Hensher, D., Shore, N. & Train, K. (2005). Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Services Attributes. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32: 509-531.
    6. Hensher, D., & Greene, W. H. (2003). The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice. Transportation, 30: 133-176.
    7. Kaliba, A. R. M., Norman, D. W., & Chang, Y. M. (2003). Willingness to Pay to Improve Domestic Water Supply in Rural Areas of Central Tanzania: Implications for Policy. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 10(2): 119-132.
    8. Malaysian Water Association (MWA). (2011). Malaysia Water Industry Guide. Research Report. Kuala Lumpur: MWA.
    9. McFadden, D. (1980). Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Product. The Journal of Business, 53(3), Part 2: Interfaces between Marketing and Economics (Jul., 1980): S13-S29.
    10. Mohd, R. Y., Alias, R. & Zaiton, S. (2011). Willingness to Pay for Domestic Water Service Improvements in Selangor, Malaysia: A Choice Modelling Approach. International Business and Management, 2(2): 30-39.
    11. Mohd, R. Y., Alias, R. & Khairil, W. (2008). Economic Valuation of Marine Parks Ecotourism Malaysia: The Case of Redang Island Marine Park. Serdang, Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
    12. Nam, P. & Son, T. (2004). Household Demand for Improved Water Services in Ho Chi Minh City: A Comparison of Contingent Valuation and Choice Modelling Estimates. Research Report 2005-RR. Economy and Environment Program of South East Asia.
    13. National Economic Planning Unit (NEPU). (2006). 9th Malaysia Plan. Research report. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: NEPU.
    14. National Economic Planning Unit (NEPU). (2010). 10th Malaysia Plan. Research report. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: NEPU.
    15. Pearce, D., and Ozdemiroglu, E. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: Summary Guide. Research report. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
    16. Rietveld, P., Rouwendal, J. and Zwart, B. (2000). Block Rate Pricing of Water in Indonesia: An Analysis of Welfare Effects. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 36(3): 73-92.
    17. Rolfe, J., Bennet, J., & Louviere, J. (2000). Choice modelling and Its Potential Application to Tropical Rainforest Preservation. Ecological Economics, 35: 289-302.
    18. Train, K. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. (2nd Ed.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
    19. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2007). Guidelines for Conducting Economic Valuation of Coastal Ecosystem Goods and Services. Research report (UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No.8). Thailand: United Nations Environment Programme.
    20. Whittington, D., Laura, D., Okun, D. & Mu, X. (1990). Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Water Services in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Contingent Valuation Method in Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38: 293-311.
    21. Zamri, W. M. (2009). Groundwater for Domestic Needs in Kelantan. Research report. Water Malaysia, 20: 6-10.