View in EDS

Better safe than sorry? Stated preferences and the precautionary principle for securing drinking water quality in an Italian district.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Better safe than sorry? Stated preferences and the precautionary principle for securing drinking water quality in an Italian district.
Authors: Antonio, Massarutto1 (AUTHOR) antonio.massarutto@uniud.it, Roder, G.1 (AUTHOR), Troiano, S.1 (AUTHOR)
Source: Utilities Policy. Jun2022, Vol. 76, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
Subjects: Drinking water quality, Contingent valuation, Individuals' preferences, Precautionary principle, Water security
Abstract: We apply Contingent Valuation (CV) to investigate individuals' preferences concerning an alleged contaminant – asbestos contained in fibrolite pipes – which, although not identified so far as a major threat to drinking water, is raising public concern. In the district of Gorizia in Northern Italy, though contrary to the recommendations of experts, mean WTP is high enough to justify an accelerated replacement of pipes as a precautionary measure. However, interviews reveal a strong polarization, and still provide inconclusive recommendations for policy. Our analysis contributes to the debate on the applicability of stated-preference techniques to choices concerning the precautionary principle when highly emotional topics are under discussion. • We apply contingent valuation to investigate willingness to pay for precautionary actions in the field of drinking water supply. • Case-study: replacement of pipes containing asbestos (asbestos-cement) on the ground of a potential but undemonstrated harm for public health. • Applicability of CV to precautionary principle is debated; our study sheds light on whether and how CV can result useful for policymakers. • We find that people are willing to pay to protect their health from unknown threatens, even in cases when the scientific community does not express concerns. • Results are strongly polarized: despite mean WTP is high enough to justify the expense, half of respondents say they would not pay anything. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Utilities Policy is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:We apply Contingent Valuation (CV) to investigate individuals' preferences concerning an alleged contaminant – asbestos contained in fibrolite pipes – which, although not identified so far as a major threat to drinking water, is raising public concern. In the district of Gorizia in Northern Italy, though contrary to the recommendations of experts, mean WTP is high enough to justify an accelerated replacement of pipes as a precautionary measure. However, interviews reveal a strong polarization, and still provide inconclusive recommendations for policy. Our analysis contributes to the debate on the applicability of stated-preference techniques to choices concerning the precautionary principle when highly emotional topics are under discussion. • We apply contingent valuation to investigate willingness to pay for precautionary actions in the field of drinking water supply. • Case-study: replacement of pipes containing asbestos (asbestos-cement) on the ground of a potential but undemonstrated harm for public health. • Applicability of CV to precautionary principle is debated; our study sheds light on whether and how CV can result useful for policymakers. • We find that people are willing to pay to protect their health from unknown threatens, even in cases when the scientific community does not express concerns. • Results are strongly polarized: despite mean WTP is high enough to justify the expense, half of respondents say they would not pay anything. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09571787
DOI:10.1016/j.jup.2022.101355