Advertisement

Willingness to pay for increasing river water quality in Aksu River, Turkey

  • Emine Ikıkat TumerEmail author
Article
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

In large part of the world, rivers are polluted with sewage, industrial and agricultural wastes. The objective of this study is to determine farmers’ willingness to pay to improve the water quality of the Aksu River in Kahramanmaras Province. For this purpose, a survey was conducted with 236 farmers in the study area and the contingent valuation method and binomial probit model were used to evaluate river quality. As a result of the analysis, it is determined that average farm size was 188.2 decares, average annual income was $ 40377.56 and 87.3% of the respondents want to do good agricultural practices, which is a form of production that does not harm the environment, human and animal health. Model results showed that the region (polluted and not polluted area) and the use of fertilizers according to soil analysis results affect farmers’ willingness to pay positively. On the other hand, the education level of farmers and bid price have a negative effect on the willingness to pay. As a result of the analysis, it is determined that the farmers wanted to pay $8.03 per decare to improve the river water quality.

Keywords

River pollution Surface water Contingent valuation Willingness to pay 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the TUBITAK under Project number 213O111.

References

  1. Basarır, A., Sayılı, M., & Muhammad, S. (2009). Analyzing producers’ willingness to pay for high quality irrigation water. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 15(6), 566–573.Google Scholar
  2. Batak, F. (1997). On Child to Child education in the kindergarden Hacettepe University, Health Sciences Institute Ankara.Google Scholar
  3. Caswell, J. A. (1995). Valuing food safety and nutrition. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Çınar, Ö. (2013). Environmental pollution and control. Nobel Academic Publisher Education and ConsultancyTic. Ltd. Sti. Publication No:667, Ankara.Google Scholar
  5. Eroğlu, V. (2007). Water resources management in Turkey, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources General Directorate of state hydraulic works. ınternational congress river basin managment (vol. 1, pp. 321–333). Antalya, Haziran.Google Scholar
  6. Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed., p. 07458). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar
  7. Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Joumal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Imandoust, S. B., & Gadam, S. N. (2007). Are people willing to pay for river water quality, contingent valuation. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(3), 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kara, C., & Çömlekçioğlu, U. (2004). Investigation of Karaçay (Kahramanmaraş) pollution with biological and physic-chemical parameters. KSÜ Science and Engineering Journal, 7(1).Google Scholar
  10. Karaer, F., & Gürlük, S. (2003). The agri-environment-economic relationships in the developing countries. Doğuş University Journal, 4(2), 197–206.Google Scholar
  11. Lichtenberg, E., & Zimmerman, R. (1999). Farmer’s willingness to pay for groundwater protection. Water Resources, 35(3), 833–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shang, Z., Che, Y., Yang, K., & Jiang, Y. (2012). Assessing Local communities’ willingness to pay for river network protection: A contingent valuation study of Shangai, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 3866–3882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tan, R. P. (2015). Knowledge, Attitudes, and willingness to pay for sewerage and sanitation services: A contingent valuation survey in metro Manila, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 18(2), 44–52.Google Scholar
  14. Tang, Z., Nan, Z., & Liu, J. (2013). The willingness to pay for irrigation water: A case study in northwest China. Global Nest Journal, 15(1), 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tanrıverdi, Ç., Alp, A., Demirkıran, A. R., & Üçkardeş, F. (2010). Assement of surface water quality of the Ceyhan River Basin, Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 167, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Toroğlu, E., Toroğlu, S., & Alaeddinoğlu, F. (2006). Water pollution in the Aksu river (Kahraman Maraş). Turkish Journal of Geographical Sciences, 4(1), 93–103.Google Scholar
  17. Xu, B., & Liu, Y. (2013). Primary evaluation of the economic losses caused by water pollution ın shanghai by classification approach. Archives of Environmental Protection, 39(1), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of AgricultureKahramanmaras Sutcu Imam UniversityKahramanmarasTurkey

Personalised recommendations