2008
DOI: 10.1029/2007wr006233
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An annual quasidifference approach to water price elasticity

Abstract: [1] The preferred price specification for retail water demand estimation has not been fully settled by prior literature. Empirical consistency of price indices is necessary to enable testing of competing specifications. Available methods of unbiasing the price index are summarized here. Using original rate information from several hundred Texas utilities, new indices of marginal and average price change are constructed. Marginal water price change is shown to explain consumption variation better than average w… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The objective contains terms for agricultural sector costs/sales, M&I water/energy demands, project and generation facility construction costs, and water and energy supply operational costs. On the demand side, we include: (a) county‐level water demand curves for the municipal and industrial sectors that are downward sloping with constant elasticities using elasticity estimates from Bell and Griffin (2008) and Cai (2009) as shown in Table S2 in Appendix S3 that are passed through observed 2020 price and consumption levels; (b) constant elasticity county electricity demand curves. (c) fixed water demands for fracking and (d) fixed price agricultural sales possibilities.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The objective contains terms for agricultural sector costs/sales, M&I water/energy demands, project and generation facility construction costs, and water and energy supply operational costs. On the demand side, we include: (a) county‐level water demand curves for the municipal and industrial sectors that are downward sloping with constant elasticities using elasticity estimates from Bell and Griffin (2008) and Cai (2009) as shown in Table S2 in Appendix S3 that are passed through observed 2020 price and consumption levels; (b) constant elasticity county electricity demand curves. (c) fixed water demands for fracking and (d) fixed price agricultural sales possibilities.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We highlight that when setting water prices, utilities and regulators should take account of multiple factors that modulate demand, such as temperatures and precipitation (Bell and Griffin, 2008), education, and awareness of water scarcity (Marzano et al, 2020). At least in high-income countries, there is increasing use of 'smart' meters that collect households' water use data on a minute or hourly basis, thus allowing greater flexibility and responsiveness in household water pricing (Vašak et al, 2014;Marzano et al, 2020).…”
Section: Valuation Of Water Infrastructurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As shown in Table 1, using Shin's test some papers conclude that households systematically overestimate marginal price [42,114], while others find that residential users underestimate their price because their perceptions are even lower than the average price [31,116]. Applying Shin's methodology in the field of residential water demand, Nieswiadomy and Molina [112] find customers reacting to marginal prices when blocks are increasing, and average prices when block rates are decreasing.…”
Section: Price Perception and Informationmentioning
confidence: 99%