increase) to both avoid water service deterioration and improve the reliability and quality of the
service. Casey et al. (2005) found that six low-income communities in the eastern area of
Manaus, Brazil were willing to pay between R$12 (US$6.10) and R$17 (US$8.70) per month to
gain access to water 24 hours per day. Rodriguez (2003) estimated that households in ten
communities in Cotacachi, Ecuador were willing to pay approximately 50 percent more than
what they currently paid to improve the quality and reliability of their water supply system. In a
study of rural communities in Nicaragua, Johnson and Baltodano (2004), found that households
were willing to pay 0.61 percent of their monthly income to improve the quantity and quality of
their most frequently used water sources including the source of potable water.
There are fewer studies evaluating the economic benefits of watershed protection related
to improved potable water services. We only identified two studies that examined the direct
relation between basin protection and water service improvements. Eisen-Hecht and Kramer
(2002) estimated household willingness to pay to maintain the current water quality level in the
Catawba River that runs through North and South Carolina and provides drinking water to
several nearby municipalities. They estimated that river basin residents have an annual mean
willingness to pay of $139 for a management plan designed to protect the river’s water quality.
Echavarria et al. (2004; cited by Wunder and Alban, 2008) conducted a survey in 2002 in the
town of Pimampiro, in the Northern Province of Ibarra, Ecuador and found that 83% of water
users were willing to protect the watershed that delivers water to the town.
Methods
This study used contingent valuation (CV) to estimate household’s willingness to pay (WTP) for
the protection of the “El Carmen” and “San Simon” micro-basins. The CV method uses surveys