Willingness to pay for improved water supply due to spring protection in Emuhaya disrict, Kenya

Abstract

This study investigated willingness to pay for improved water services due to spring protection in Emuhaya District. Semi- structured questionnaires were used to generate qualitative and empirical data on 200 randomly selected respondents using protected and unprotected springs from Emuhaya District of Vihiga County. Contigent valuation method was used for valuation of environmental benefits. Logit model was then adopted to evaluate factors influencing WTP. Findings showed that upto 93% of respondents were willing to pay inorder to receive satisfactory spring protection services with a mean WTP of Ksh 111. Moreover, the regression results showed that support, membership to group, farm size and time were significant in explaining the variations in the WTP for spring protection. It can be concluded from the study that there was interest among households involved in using springs to participate in the spring protection which implied that they acknowledged importance of water for it is the main natural resource that is vital for improving life. Therefore there was a recommendation on conscious efforts being made to involve the community in the whole planning process of spring protection and cost recovery. In addition, further studies on impact of time saved due to spring protection on agricultural productivity. ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com 2 1. INTRODUCTION Maintainence and protection of water supply systems for communities that access water from natural sources such as rivers, streams, ponds and springs has received increased concern. Though some few rural communities in Africa have been able to improve their water supplies, most of them have not because they consider water from natural sources free. Hanemann (2005) argued that water has an economic value only when its supply is scarce relative to demand and whenever its available in unlimited suppy its free in economic sense. Nevertheless water has traditionally been regarded as a “free” good instead of a scarce good in water economics. Hence people neglect the value of water because they can obtain it freely, it has no price, not scarce, its a common property and is not traded in a market. Kenya surface water coverage is only 2%, a water scarce category of 647m3 per capita against the global benchmark of 1000m3 (KWAHO, 2009) which is further exacerbated by pollution, over exploitation and degradation of catchments areas, rapidly growing demand for water for most uses and mismanagement through unsustainable water and land use policies, laws and institutions (GOK, 2006). This water crisis leads to a growing demand over limited water endowment which in turn generates competition and causes conflict over water supply hence adversely affecting the poor and communities without adequate representation in allocation of decision making (GOK, 2006). Kenya has embedded its water sector reforms into overall poverty reducing strategies in the vision 2030 (Sattler, 2010). Moreover, there is a link between water and poverty which is clearly spelt in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and MDGs where the specific targets rely on the improvement in water sector (Sattler, 2010). PRSP recognizes that water is a basic need and important catalyst both for economic and social development (GOK, 2006). Similarly, achieving MDG target on safe water and sanitation will enhance achieving other MDG targets on gender equity, reduced poverty, improved child attendance to school, and reduced waterborne diseases which are major causes of child mortality and other MDGs. Therefore, the major focus is on the fight against poverty and seeks to “halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation becomes important target (Sattler, 2010). Investigations have shown that when springs are properly developed, maintained and treated, they can be can be a reliable source of clean, low-cost, high-quality drinking water (Weigmann et al, 1999). They therefor