WILLINGNESS TO PAY OF URBAN HOUSEHOLDS FOR IMPROVED

DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY IN ALANGALANG, LEYTE

A Thesis Manuscript
Presented to the Faculty of the
Department of Environmental Science
College of Environmental and Agricultural Sciences
Visayas State University
Alangalang, Leyte

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science

MARY ROSE A. IGNACIO

May 2023
 RESEARCH APPROVAL SHEET

2nd semester AY 2022 - 2023

WILLINGNESS TO PAY OF URBAN HOUSEHOLDS FOR IMPROVED

DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY IN ALANGALANG, LEYTE.

Title of thesis/special problem/apprenticeship report/engineering project report/case

study

Proposal / Outline Manuscript

NAME OF STUDENT: MARY ROSE IGNACIO

Degree Program : Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science

Major Field : None

APPROVED : DR. JUDITH B. JOMADIAO

Adviser Date Signed

REVIEWED : Student Research Committee:

JAYSON D. BALDESCO
Chairperson Date Signed

LYDIA L. ROBEL
Member Date Signed

APPROVED: JAYSON D. BALDESCO

Department Head Date Signed

SONIA L. PEDROSA
College Dean Date Signed
 TRANSMITTAL

The undergraduate thesis/special problem/apprenticeship report/engineering project

report/case study attached hereto WILLINGNESS TO PAY OF URBAN
HOUSEHOLDS FOR IMPROVED DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY IN
ALANGALANG, LEYTE prepared and submitted by MARY ROSE A. IGNACIO
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Environmental Science 2nd semester AY 2022 - 2023 is hereby accepted.

DR. JUDITH B. JOMADIAO

Adviser

____________

Date

Student Research Committee:

JAYSON D. BALDESCO LYDIA L. ROBEL

Chairperson Member

____________ ___________
Date Date

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor

of Science in Environmental Science.

JAYSON D. BALDESCO
Department Head
Department of Environmental Sciences

____________
Date

SONIA L. PEDROSA
Dean
College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

____________
Date
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

” Trust in God is the best way to overcome all your trials in Life;
promise no regret!”
- M. R. Ignacio

God, thank you very much for giving me courage daily. Although my experience in
doing this thesis has not been easy, there are times that I am at my lowest point where
I am losing hope and self-confidence. But despite all my trials in doing this thesis,
thank you also for giving me people who are there always to guide me to finish it and
giving me inspiration, love, and trust.

My special thanks to the following people:

To my thesis adviser and committee members, thank you for guiding me in the
research, even though you are busy. Thank you for giving me the knowledge and the
opportunity to learn everything. I am so proud of all of you as my thesis adviser and
as a guide to learning something important in conducting this study.

To my kind and beautiful mother, thank you for being there for me despite my trials
in learning and always there to understand me and tell me what to do in life. So, I
believe that mother knows best. I love you, and again thank you for giving me this
life.

To my one-call-away cousins Cathy Anne, Amabelle, Christine, and Diane. Thank

you for being there and inspiring me, even if sometimes not in a good way, but
honestly, I enjoyed having you around. The laughter and sadness we shared are my
best memories forever. I have loved you since day one.

To Robert Jayson, thank you, and I am glad I met you. You also gave me great
inspiration in life. I can't ask for anything more from your efforts. Thank you too, and
you always make me feel that I can do it whenever I lose hope to continue my studies.
I have been blessed since the beginning when we met.

To my friends Jane, Nam, Itchen, and Caps, I am so blessed to have you as my

friends. Despite our trials in conducting our thesis, we created the best memories.
Thank you for trusting me as a friend, even though sometimes we have
misunderstandings. You have become a particular part of my life. Good luck to us and
the journey at the end of our studies. I pray that God will guide us in this new chapter
of our lives, and I hope that when we meet again, nothing will change in how we treat
each other. I love you guys. And advance congratulations!
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Research Approval…………………………………………………………..ii
Transmittal………………………………………………………………….iii
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………….iv
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………v
List of Figures……………………………………………………………...vii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………...viii
List of Appendices..........................................................................................x
Abstract..........................................................................................................xi

INTRODUCTION 1
Nature and Importance of the Study………………………………………………1
Objectives of the Study............................................................................................4
Scope and Limitations of the Study.........................................................................5
Time and Place of the Study....................................................................................5

REVIEW OF LITERARTURE 6
Status of Philippine .................................................................................................6
Sustainable Watershed Management in the Philippines..........................................7
Realities of Implementing Watershed Management Plans in the Philippines.........8
Contingent Valuation Method..................................................................................9
Contingent Valuation of Drinking Water Quality……………………………… 10
Valuation Studies in the Philippines......................................................................12
Factors Affecting Willingness to Pay for Improved Domestic Water Supply.......13
Households Willingness to Pay..............................................................................15
Estimates Respondents Willingness to Pay............................................................16

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 18

Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................18
Conceptual Framework..........................................................................................21
Statement of Hypothesis and Assumptions............................................................22

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS 24

METHODOLOGY 26
Description of the Study Site.................................................................................26
 Sampling Method………………………………………………………………...28
Research Design.....................................................................................................28
Research Instrument...............................................................................................28
Data Collection.......................................................................................................29
Variables of the Study............................................................................................29
WTP Model............................................................................................................30
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….31
Logistic Regression Analysis.................................................................................31
WTP Scenario........................................................................................................32

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 33

Distribution of Respondents by Location..............................................................33
Respondents Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics...........................33
Respondents' Awareness about Watershed………………………………………36
Household Water Consumption, Use, and Expenditures.......................................39
Respondent’s Willigness to Pay and their Reasons...............................................44
The Determinants of Respondents’ WTP for the Sustainable Management and
Protection of the Mainit Watershed.......................................................................47
Assessment of Institutional Arrangements.............................................................48

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 52

SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………52
Implications………………………………………………………………………54
Recommendations………………………………………………………………..56

LITERATURE CITED 57

APPENDICES 66
Appendix 1. Survey Questionnaires.......................................................................66
Appendix 3. Documentation..................................................................................73
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1 Conceptual framework showing the factors affecting

household’s WTP for the management and protection of
Mainit Watershed
2 Map showing the study site

3 Map showing the site of Watershed

 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Variables used in the WTP method for the payments of

Mainit Watershed Protection
Table 2. Distribution of respondents based on their location,
Poblacion Alangalang, Leyte (2023)
Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents
Table 4. Characteristics of the surveyed respondents connected
to Alangalang Water Supply System (AWASS),
Leyte, Philippines (2023)
Table 5. Households’ socioeconomic attributes
Table 6. Respondent's awareness of watershed
Table 7. Source of respondents about watershed
Table 8. Respondent’s Perception of the functions of watersheds.
Table 9. Responses on how respondents rate the importance of a
well-managed and protected watershed for sustainable water
supply 38
Table 10. Respondent’s Perception of the role/services of well-
managed and protected watersheds
Table 11. Organizational Membership
Table 12. The volume of water consumption, monthly water bill
of households, uses and their alternative water
sources
Table 13. The availability of water connected to the Alangalang
Water Supply System (AWASS) of hpuseholds in
Alangalang, Leyte
Table 14. Respondents who experience disrupted water supply
from the water system
Table 15. Causes of disrupted water supply according to the
respondents
Table 16. Consequences of unstable/unsafe water supply to the
households
Table 17. The percieved water quality delivered from
Alangalang Water Supply System (AWASS)
Table 18. Urban Household’s perceived water quality derived
from Alangalang Water Supply System (AWASS)
Table 19. Respondent’s Willingness to Pay for the protecion of
Mainit watershed
Table 20. Reasons why respondents were willing to pay to
protect Mainit watershed as the source of water in
Alagalang, Leyte
Table 21. Reasons why respondents were not willing to pay for
the sustainable management and protection of
Mainit watershed, Leyte
Table 22. The amount of Willingness to Pay for the Protection of
Mainit watershed in Alangalang, Leyte, Philippines
(2023)
Table 23. Determinants affecting respondents’ WTP for the
protection of Mainit watershed using logit-
regression analysis
Table 24. Respondents preffred collection mechanism for
domestic water user fee for the protection of Mainit
watershed, Alangalang, Leyte (2023)
Table 25. The appropriate basis fro charging user fee for the
protection of Mainit watershed, Alangalang, Leyte
(2023)
Table 26. Appropriate period of payment for the water user fee
among the households in urban area of Alangalang,
Leyte (2023)
Table 27. Responses whol will handle the funds collected
 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1. Survey questionnaire

APPENDIX 2. Photo Documentation
 ABSTRACT

IGNACIO, MARY ROSE A. Visayas State University. May 2023.

WILLINGNESS TO PAY OF URBAN HOUSEHOLDS FOR IMPROVED
DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY IN ALANGALANG, LEYTE

Adviser: DR. JUDITH B. JOMADIAO

The present study aimed to assess the willingness to pay of urban households

in Alangalang, Leyte, for enhanced domestic water supply achieved through

sustainable management of Mainit Watershed, Leyte. The specific objectives were to:

a) ascertain the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of household

respondents; b) determine the level of awareness among households regarding the

watershed and its environmental services; c) evaluate households' domestic water

consumption and expenditures; d) measure households' willingness to pay for

improved water quality and quantity of domestic water supply through sustainable

watershed management; e) identify the determinants influencing households'

willingness to pay in relation to sustainable management of Mainit Watershed; f)

propose a fund collection and utilization mechanism for improved watershed

management; and g) provide policy recommendations for the protection of Mainit

watershed. A total of 100 respondents were surveyed, and contingent valuation

methods were employed using a dichotomous-choice referendum format to elicit

households' willingness to pay. Descriptive statistics and frequency analysis were

utilized to describe the characteristics and distribution of the respondents. Logit

analysis was employed to identify the determinants influencing respondents' decision

to pay for improved domestic water supply through sustainable management of

Mainit Watershed. The survey findings revealed a limited level of awareness among

respondents regarding the watershed and its services. Nevertheless, despite this low
awareness level, 76% of the respondents expressed their willingness to pay for

enhanced watershed management. The results of the logit analysis indicated that age,

income, and awareness were significant variables affecting respondents' willingness

to pay. Furthermore, respondents who used water advised AWASS to handle the

funds.
Key words: Water supply, Watershed, Willingness to pay
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Nature and Importance of the Study

One of the essentials for life is water. Water is a necessity for all living things

to survive. Water is utilized for many things, such as drinking, cooking, irrigating, and

manufacturing. Although more than 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by water,

less than 1% of that resource is available as fresh water, and even that is not

distributed equally over the globe. Continuous water supply enhances household

living standards and promotes the growth of all economic activities, whether they are

in the agricultural, industrial, or service sectors. Access to clean water is essential to

protecting one's health and reducing household poverty. Water sources are irrationally

being overused and contaminated. Clean water is becoming increasingly expensive

(Khuc, 2013).

The term "watershed" refers to a region of land that empties into a body of

water, such as a river, wetland, reservoir, or ocean. Rain that falls on the ground

travels from higher to lower elevations and eventually toward a common body of

water, carrying several contaminants and particulates from the land. The passage of

water links together watersheds. Throughout watersheds, streams and rivers carry a

large portion of the water from high to low elevations (MSU, 2017).

The watershed is the area that will supply water to a network of streams and

neighboring watersheds (Cabrol and Grin, 2010). Watershed biological, physical, and

chemical functions offer essential ecosystem services supporting plants, animals, and

humans. Some ecosystem services within watersheds include nutrient cycling, carbon
 2

storage, soil formation, improved biodiversity, wildlife corridors, water storage, water

filtration, flood management, and recreation (MSU, P3082).

There are over one billion people without access to clean drinking water, most

of whom live in developing nations. There are numerous difficulties in providing a

safe, sufficient, and consistent water supply in various places, in addition to water

scarcity (Abayneh, 2004). A severe water shortage will result in a decline in life

quality and financial losses for businesses that rely primarily on the water as a

significant input for manufacturing (Information Technology Services Office, March

2015).

Reduce water quality and has a severe negative impact on the ecosystem and

habitats that support plant and animal life. Most of our freshwater is degraded, and

their plant and animal populations are at risk. Deterioration of water quality decreases

the sustainability of water for all purposes and increases the cost of making it

available for use.

Rapid urbanization and population growth can increase the demand for

municipal and agricultural water (Tabios and David, 2002). In addition, the rapid

population growth rate in the water-stressed regions will continue to exert pressure

despite water availability which remains nearly constant unless certain infrastructure

developments are initiated to address economic water scarcity in the country

(Lansigan and Rillera, 2009). This rise in demand has also resulted in the quantity

and quality of the water accessible (Calderon and Camacho, 2005). Human activities,

such as land use changes, contribute to poor water quality. This water carries

sediments and pollutants from the land area, drains, impairments rivers and streams,

and acts as indicators of unhealthy watersheds brought on by upstream land use.

 3

When watersheds are degraded, the ecological benefits and services s can be reduced

or completely lost, resulting in pollution. The environment and people will suffer if

water bodies cannot support their intended or natural functions (USEPA, 2009). But

despite the problem faced, implementing a practical approach or management is

necessary.

A healthy watershed has stable soils, is pollution-free, and has a diverse

biological community (USEPA, 2017). Watershed health has been connected to

economic benefits for communities. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s

“Ecosystems and Human Well-being”, (2005) suggested that human well-being

depends on ecosystem services, categorized as providing, cultural, regulating, and

sustaining services. In addition, watershed health has been connected to mental and

physical health benefits. People in healthy watersheds have easy access to forests,

greenways, parks, and trails, according to research from the National Park Service,

(NPS, 1995; USEPA, 2017). Across biophysical and socioeconomic categories, the

distribution of healthy watersheds is uneven; access to ecosystem services

consistently correlates with better health and economic results (USEPA, 2016).

The Mainit Watershed is within the municipality of Jaro, Alangalang, and San

Miguel Leyte. The watershed offers domestic, institutional, and commercial water.

The main tributaries of the Mainit watershed are Cabayungan and Mainit Rivers

(Openstreetmap), merging in Barangay Tombo, Alangalang, Leyte. Mainit River

plays a vital role in the economy of the municipalities of Jaro, Alangalang, and San

Miguel. Aside from being the domestic abode of many communities, vast farmers

depend on the irrigation waters from the dam built along it. It is also the water source
 4

for the Alangalang Water Supply System (AWASS), which supplies water to its

concessionaires for domestic and commercial use.

The Mainit Watershed requires protection since landslides frequently occur in

upland areas and are particularly prone to happen in areas upstream with steep slopes.

Mainit watershed is one of the main channels of the Mainit River.

Mainit Watershed as a minor watershed is poorly documented and

communicated to the people in addressing its importance as a watershed. Due to

inadequate knowledge and awareness of people on its value, there is a failure to

account for the genuine price of the resource. As a public good, the people consider

the watershed free, making it vulnerable to exploitation and deprived of funds for

rehabilitation. The payments of water users do not necessarily reflect the price of raw

water, the cost of extraction, and the utilization of the resources (Calderon et al.,

2005). There is a pressing need to understand the value of Mainit Watershed better to

raise awareness and make investment and regulatory decisions.

This study was conducted to provide baseline data or information on the

willingness to pay of urban households for improved domestic water supply through

the sustainable management of a watershed.

Objectives of the Study

Generally, the study aimed to estimate the willingness to pay of urban

households in Alangalang. Leyte for improved domestic water supply through

sustainable management of the Mainit Watershed. Specifically, the study aimed to:

1. Determine the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of household

respondents;
 5

2. Assess the household domestic water consumption and expenditures;

3. Determine the awareness of households about the watershed and its

environmental services;

4. Assess the households’ willingness to pay for improved water quality and

quantity of domestic water supply through sustainable watershed management;

and

5. To suggest policy recommendations for the protection of the Mainit watershed

6. Identify the determinants of households’ willingness to pay through

sustainable management of Mainit Watershed.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The study covered the Alangalang Water System (AWAS) household water

concessionaires of the eight (8) urban barangays of Alangalang, Leyte. The study

employed the respondent’s willingness to pay of households for improved domestic

water supply through sustainable management of the Mainit watershed.

Time and Place of the Study

The study was conducted from January - March 2023. The study includes

eight urban barangays in Alangalang Leyte, such as Barangays Blumentritt, Holy

Child I, Holy Child II, Milagrosa, Salvacion, San Antonio, San Roque, and Sto. Niño.
 6

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Status of Philippine Watersheds

Watersheds are regions of land that empties into a common body of water,

such as river, wetland, reservoir, or ocean. Rain travels from higher to lower

elevations, carrying contaminants and particulates (MSU, 2017). Philippines has 135

watersheds, covering 1,561,128 hectares (DENR-FMB, 2011). Watersheds provide

clean water for agriculture, domestic activities, but urbanized areas face water deficit

due to uneven distribution (World Bank, 2003). Watersheds play a critical role in

regulating water quantity, quality and exploring significance various ecosystem

processes such as nutrient cycling and sediment control (Hamre et al., 2017).

Philippine watershed ecosystems are generally subjected to human activities,

such as urbanization and agriculture that can significantly impact water quality,

hydrological processes and biodiversity within watersheds and it is needed to have an

effective watershed management to mitigate negative impacts and restore degraded

stream ecosystem (Allan, 2004). In addition, impacts of deforestation, illegal logging,

and unsustainable land use practices on water quality and ecosystem health, offering

valuable insights into the state of Philippine watershed ecosystems (Aliño et al.,

2011). Despite the challenges that threaten the health of a watershed from upstream

areas to downstream areas, the role of the watershed as a water supply support system

has always been the driving force behind the urgency to put these watersheds under

appropriate management (Herminia et al., 2004).

 7

Sustainable Watershed Management in the Philippines

Sustainable watershed management is a system of managing watershed

resources to produce sufficient and consistent flow of products and services to satisfy

both current and future demands generations (Cruz, 1999). The practice of directing

and organizing the use of land and other resources in a watershed to provide desired

goods and services without negatively damaging soil and water resources is known as

watershed management (Brooks et al., 1991). However, soil erosion, unpredictable

stream flow, dwindling groundwater resources, and increased agricultural productivity

already affect the Philippines' watersheds (Cruz, 1999). But there is still an approach

in environmental management wherein national administrations typically

create priorities, establish policies, specify plans, delegate duties, manage budgets,

and specify who receives services, when they will be provided, and how, often with

minimal LGUs and the civil society participating (Malayang, 2001).

And it is stated that participation of various stakeholders was given high

importance for the sustainable management of the watershed. Other cases are the

DENR’s (REFO-C) project that engaged private contractors, e.g., firms, NGOs,

individuals, families, LGUs and civic organizations and its (REFO-A) Program that

hired waged labor its reforestation activities (Elazegui et al., 2004).

Realities of Implementing Watershed Management Plans in the Philippines
There are still several watersheds around the nation that have no intentional

land use and management plans. This has led to disorder in the use of scarce

resources, including land, in the watersheds that led to instability and inefficiency

(Cruz, 1999).

Watershed management thrives in areas with well-understood ecological

relationships, high social capital, adequate financial resources, technical expertise,

and legal and institutional support. The Maasin watershed demonstrates the

importance of these factors in successful management. Resource managers in

watersheds must have legal and institutional support for land use changes and policy

reforms to achieve management goals. Legislation and institutional structures are

crucial for successful implementation of watershed management decisions, both

nationally and locally (Francisco and Salas, 2004).

Local research in the Manupali watershed, with about 60% of its land area

belonging to the upland municipality of Lantapan, Bukidnon, found that water

quantity and quality declined due to soil erosion and domestic waste contamination.

As population grows and agriculture becomes more integrated to the market, water

deterioration is projected to worsen. Both economic and environmental sustainability

that depend on the management bodies, management entities have management plans

in place with some funding pledges. The watershed management plan still needs

funding support and an institutional body that can implement plans. Some of the

challenges that were identified in implementing the several watershed management

plans charged with financial sustainability, limited economic instruments, weak

 9

property rights, lack of administrative mechanisms, human capital and institutional

constraints, and a legal basis for the management structure (Suminguit et al., 2004).

For instance, a prediction was made that by 2025, only 10% of all renewable

water will still be available but it needs to regulate water consumption and conserve

water resources in the region and in the Philippines (Rola et al., 2014). However,

overtime the amount of water available per person has decreased (Webster). When

water is valued between consumers, it shows inefficiencies in water distribution and

suggests that welfare could be increased through the implementation of suitable

solutions. Policies that are not focused on water usage, as well as the relationship

between water policies and distributional considerations, have an impact on how

water is valued and allocated (Rola et al., 2014).

Contingent Valuation Method

In cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment, the contingency

valuation method (CVM) is a straightforward, adaptable nonmarket valuation

technique (Venkatachala, 2004). The CV method is a popular nonmarket valuation

technique, particularly in environmental cost-benefit and environmental impact

analysis (Carson, 1996). Its application in environmental economics includes

estimation of non-use values, nonmarket use values or both of environmental

resources (Brookshire, 1982). In recent years, this method is commonly used in

developing countries to elicit the individuals' preferences for the basic infrastructural

projects such as water supply and sanitation (Merrett, 2002).

Inefficient dichotomous-choice (referendum) contingent-valuation questions

require a very large number of observations to accurately determine a distribution of

 10

resource values. A subsequent dichotomous-choice question is introduced using an

alternative questioning technique. By modifying the premise that the same

unobserved resource value drives both answers, we generalize past analyses of this

sort of data. Although the first and second responses' inferred values are highly

connected and might be taken from the same distribution, they are unquestionably not

the same. Furthermore, assuming that they are can significantly skew the distribution

of the predicted valuation (Cameron and Quiggin, 1994).

Measures of quality perception should be included as covariates in the

willingness to pay model in contingent valuation studies to prevent the bias caused by

omitted variables; quality perceptions that differ between respondents are endogenous

variables. A measure of quality perceptions is included by several exogenous factors

as part of an instrumental variable method that we use to address endogeneity bias. To

allow for the correlation of the error factors, the willingness to pay and quality

perception equations are evaluated together. We disagree that perceived quality and

quantity are exogenous factors in determining one's willingness to pay (Whitehead,

2003).

Contingent Valuation of drinking water quality

Analysis of household willingness-to-pay and actual market expenditures for

tap-water treatment was used to evaluate the improvement in the quality of the

drinking water. Such a Non-market valuation is a sort of economic valuation. It is

frequently employed when a market pricing for a public asset (like the quality of

drinking water) does not accurately reflect the cost of the good. The willingness to

pay (WTP) of some economic agents for a change in the level of provision of a public
 11

product is a fundamental component of non-market valuation. The willingness of an

individual to pay for this modification of a public good reflects their preferences,

Consequently, it can be seen as a financial indicator of this public good or service.

Contingent valuation (CV) and avoidance expenditures are the two different

instruments that make up non-market valuation (AE). Based on sociological surveys,

both. The avoidance expenditures technique, also known as an indirect valuation, is

based on an analysis of the real household expenditures associated to decreasing and

mitigating health risks from environmental pollution. In the AE model, household

preventative measures (such as tap water filtration) are used as a starting point for

estimating the demand for high-quality drinking water. If the quality of the tap water

degrades, the households must raise their costs to keep the final drinking water's

quality consistent (Beaumais et al., 2014).

It presented in a graphical definition of the willingness to pay as a demand for

clear drinking water and demonstrated that, in some cases, an increase in 'averting

expenditure' can be interpreted as a measure of welfare loss incurred by the

households because of the deterioration in environmental quality. To lessen the health

risk, a person's WTP can be assessed using preventative measures (such a personal

water treatment). When a person has the option to "buy" a decrease in the health risk

associated with tainted drinking water, the cost of doing so can be used to estimate

their WTP for improved water quality. One can estimate WTP if they have

information on each person's cost of avoidance measures (which is likely to differ

between persons, especially if there is a time cost associated with these activities) and

how avoidance behavior affects the decrease of health risks (Courant and

Porter ,1981).
 12

In the contingent valuation approach, standardized questionnaires are used to

directly ask people to estimate how much they would be ready to pay for improved

tap water quality. Direct valuation is the name given to this strategy. The primary

distinction between this method and the AE-approach is that no actual purchases of

the commodity were made; instead, households estimated the fictitious process. Some

fictitious modification (to drinking) is described in the questionnaire. For instance, the

respondent is directly questioned about his or her possible WTP for this modification.

Questions about attitudes and demographics are typically included to it. The

knowledge gained is utilized to calculate a valuation function that "explains" WTP as

a function of the numerous factors that are thought to potentially influence WTP for

clear water (Courant and Porter ,1981).

The validity and dependability of the results are the main criticisms leveled

against the contingent valuation method answer fictitious WTP queries. The approach

appears to be extremely biased-prone. Many studies have been conducted to identify

these biases and explain how to prevent them, and as a result, the standards require

carrying out appropriate CV research. By carefully planning the framework of the

research, one might potentially avoid strategic bias (i.e., premeditate bias of the WTP)

and information bias (i.e., coming from the incompleteness of the available

information) (Arrow et al., 1993). The questionnaire, sample selection, and promised

payment (i.e., compensation in the form of taxes, monthly tariffs, etc.) should all

receive special consideration. The early surveys in small groups can smooth over so-

called systematic biases (i.e., intrinsic to the CV method) (Shibata et al., 1989).

Valuation Studies in the Philippines

 13

Valuation studies in the Philippines have played a vital role in understanding

the importance and demand for various resources and services. One notable study is

"Valuing improved domestic water supply in the Philippines: An application of the

contingent valuation method" this study utilized the contingent valuation method to

assess the willingness to pay for improved domestic water supply in the country

(Ortile et al., 2016). Another noteworthy contribution is "Understanding willingness

to pay for improved domestic water supply in the Philippines: A choice experiment

approach" this study employed a choice experiment approach to investigate how

different attributes of domestic water supply affect willingness to pay (Santos and

Singrus, 2015). Additionally, "Determinants of willingness to pay for improved

domestic water supply in the Philippines: A study based on household surveys",

examines the factors that influence households' willingness to pay for improved water

supply through detailed household surveys. These valuation studies provide valuable

insights into the valuation of resources and services in the Philippines, informing

policymakers and stakeholders in decision-making processes (Castro and Pasquire,

2018).

Factors Affecting Willingness to Pay for Improved Domestic Water Supply

To determine the relationship, the willingness to pay for an enhanced water

supply was compared to personal and household characteristics. Association of

Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply System depending on the respondent's

gender, the size of the household, their age, their income, their level of literacy,

whether they work abroad (and whether their family receives remittances), whether

they own land, and whether they have a kitchen garden. Hence it is concluded that
 14

water source, water-borne diseases, water quantity, want for change, water fetching

time are the factors affecting willingness to pay for improved water supply system

(Dhungana and Baral, 2017).

Economic factors play a crucial role in determining an individual's willingness

to pay for improved domestic water supply. Income levels and affordability

significantly affect one's ability to allocate resources towards purchasing this service.

Trust in the water provider and perceptions of service reliability also impact

willingness to pay. If consumers have confidence in the utility company's ability to

consistently deliver safe water, they are more likely to consider it a worthwhile

investment. Dissatisfaction with existing services can increase the likelihood of

individuals being willing to pay for an improved water supply (Dinar et al., 2007).

In addition, consumers are more likely to be willing to pay if the cost is

reasonable and within their budget constraints. Political factors like government

policies and regulations also can impact willingness to pay. Supportive policies,

subsidies, or incentives can enhance consumers' affordability and make improved

water supply more accessible, thereby increasing willingness to pay. Technological

advancements and innovation can influence willingness to pay for improved water

supply. The availability of new and more efficient water treatment technologies may

enhance the perceived value of the service and increase willingness to pay (Schleich

et al., 2014). The quality of improved water supply significantly influences

willingness to pay. Consumers are more likely to invest in reliable, clean, and safe

water, as it directly affects their health and well-being. Perceived risks, environmental

factors, and climate change can also affect willingness to pay. Consumers

experiencing climate change consequences may be more willing to pay for improved
 15

water supply measures (Team et al., 2020). Level of awareness and knowledge about

the benefits of improved water supply also influence willingness to pay. Consumers

who are better informed about the positive impacts of clean water may be more likely

to allocate financial resources for this service (Bai et al., 2019). Location and

proximity to alternative water sources are significant factors. Consumers who live in

areas where access to clean water is limited or where alternative sources like wells are

costly or onerous to maintain may have a higher willingness to pay for improved

domestic water supply (Koundouri et al., 2003).

Kayaga, (2003) conducted a study on paying for water services and its effects

of household characteristics. Using regression techniques, it was established that the

following attributes of the household head moderated the satisfaction and loyalty

relationship: gender, occupation, and level of education. Other significant factors

were household income and property tenure status. These results could be used to

make water utilities consumer focused.

Household Willingness to pay

For eliciting the WTP, the respondents were informed of a scenario in which

the tap water services were improved, resulting in a continuous water supply with

adequate pressure, good quality water that could be consumed without boiling or

other treatment, and improved tap water services overall. WTP gauges the

improvement in a household's well-being once it gains access to tap water that is fit

for consumption. Most respondents (66.8%) were willing to pay an extra sum each

month to upgrade the water supply and services, compared to 33.2% who were not

(Table 4). Studies have also shown that most people are willing to pay a specific
 16

amount each month for improvements in tap water quality (Chatterjee and Houtven,

2017).

Most respondents (43.2%) indicated that they would be willing to pay the

lowest sum ($50.00), while the remaining respondents indicated that they would be

willing to pay sums more than $50.00. Many respondents opted for the lower amount

over the higher amounts. It somehow reflects the downward-sloping theoretical

probability of the WTP. This indicates that respondents are more likely to be willing

to pay when the bid amount is smaller and less likely to do so when the bid amount is

larger (Celeste, 2009).

The main justification given by respondents who were unwilling to pay was

that they had no desire to pay more to enhance the agency's current services because

they could afford to purchase purified water for drinking. Since respondents

occasionally observed particles and a chlorine odor in the water supplied by BCWD,

they paid an additional cost of PhP 296.88 on average for purified drinking water.

Purified water is increasingly needed by water refilling stations as the demand for

cleaner water rises (Magtibay, 2004).

Since it is cleaner and safe to drink, people from all localities choose to use the

filtered water sold by refilling stations. Water refilling stations that sell purified water

are growing because of the high demand for safe water and the respondents' decision

to spend more money for drinking water due to the uncertainty about biological

contaminants, disinfection by-products from the chlorination process, taste, and odor

(Macatangay et al., 2015).

Estimates Respondents Willingness to Pay

 17

In Davao City (Whittingnton et al., 1995), a survey examined a total of 521 in

person interviews to determine their willingness to pay for improved water quality in

nearby rivers and sea. The results showed that household WTP for water quality

improvement is low, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of income and 15% of

the respondents refused to pay anything at all. Households with higher incomes are

willing to pay more for environmental improvements than households that used Times

Beach are willing to pay about 30 pesos per month (about 0.6 percent of mean

household income); while non-users are willing to pay almost nothing.

Kim and Cho, (2002) estimated the consumer’s willingness to pay to reduce

copper contamination in their drinking water in Southwestern Minnesota. The annual

mean WTP per household was estimated using survey data from nine countries in

southwestern Minnesota where copper contamination is high. The annual mean WTP

per household varied from a low range of $30.41 to $43.61 for Chippewa country to a

high range of $39.79 to $57.06 for Noble’s country. The aggregate WTP for all nine

countries was estimated to range from $1.66 to $2.38 million. However, the estimated

WTP may not be sufficient to pay the cost of providing improved water through

public water systems for small communities in southwestern Minnesota.

In Tuguegarao City, Amponin, (2006) estimated residents’ willingness to pay

for watershed protection among domestic waters. It was focused out that the domestic

water users in Tuguegarao City are willing to pay an additional amount of PhP43.73

per month for watershed protection and management. The additional fee could be a

potential source of revenue which when aggregated to the number of households with

water connection, could amount PhP5,134,000 per year. This potential local fund may

be substantial enough to finance the proposed watershed management program.

 18

CHAPTER III

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Theoretical Framework

Environmental economic valuation is a social process that depends on social

agreement rather than a scientific procedure deriving from external law. Alternatives

to economic valuation are considered and may have a more solid social foundation.

Neo-classical value theory is currently internally flawed in any attempt to describe the

real world. The cost-benefit analysis relies on the assertion that this neo-classical

theory has a specific standing in optimal welfare maximization and, as a result, suffers

from the same internal consistency challenges when it comes to the valuation of

environmental agents (Prior, 1998).

Estimates of willingness to pay can be linked to changes in environmental

quality and resource utilization using economic methodologies (Whitehead and Haab,

2013) wherein things were valued if they met human needs according to the utilitarian

framework. The lack of explicit markets for environmental quality is a major issue

when valuing environmental products like the infrastructure for clean drinking water.
 19

As a result, determining a product's monetary value is mainly based on non-market

information like survey findings (Guha, 2007).

This study will use a contingent valuation approach to collect willingness to

pay measurements for water quality and quantity improvements through the

management of a watershed. Watershed management involves management of soil

and water, agriculture, and forestry. But technical remedies for managing these

resources will only succeed if they can function within and address local

socioeconomic constraints (FAO, 1999). Many former studies extracted the WTP for

improved water services for different populations (Tavarez et al., 2021).

Willingness to pay (WTP) is correlated with their household's socioeconomic

and demographic factors, such as income, sex, education, employment status,

household size, age, and membership in a certain organization. The assessment

method includes the collection of household awareness. This believed perception may

impact how the actual issues and watershed protection processes are valued.

Household water consumptions such as household's monthly water bill, water

expenses, water bill, and availability of water are variables or other external variables

believed to impact the benefits received from watershed protection.

Welfare economics uses utility theory in microeconomics to analyze the

perceived value of goods or services. Individuals aim to maximize utility through

actions and consumption choices, while market structures and processes maximize

total utility or consumer and producer surplus. Welfare economics seeks to create the

highest social satisfaction among its members (Boyle and Kvilhaug, 2022). Estimates

of household utility that are influenced by households' willingness to pay will be used

as decision-making input and are thought to have policy implications for protecting
 20

the Mainit Watershed that result in better or safer drinking water. In this method,

survey respondents will be given a hypothetical situation and asked to contribute the

utmost amount possible to contribute the activities or programs that will produce the

desired result: the watershed management protection program. Consider the following

scenario: "How much are you willing to pay to improve water supply through

management of the Mainit watershed for its sustainable management and provision of

consistent water quality and quantity to the residents of Alangalang?” in making their

decisions, respondents considered their circumstances and budget constraints when

answering the WTP question.

The consumer must choose between a budget limiting their consumption

options and another set of options. As a result, he must decide which specific goods

and services best suit his needs and are within his budget, given his limited resources.

The benefit he receives from the services is what gives him satisfaction. The

consumer aims to maximize utility while staying within his financial limits. For a

fixed income, Y, and vector of prices P1 and P2.

ΣPi (X, Ω) = Yi = 1,2…………………. (1)

Where X = environmental quality

Ω = Other goods and services

P = is vector of prices (P = P1, P2)

P1 = Price of water quality

P2 = Price of other goods

Y = income of the household

It is assumed that the household can evaluate all the available options. Thus,

there exists an ordinal utility function.

 21

U = U (X, Ω) …………………. (2)

This is the mathematical expression of a household preference. The household

chooses the most preferred bundle that satisfies the financial restrictions.

Conceptual Framework

WTP of Domestic Water

User

Household socio-economic
Characteristics
 Age
 Sex Water Consumption's:
 Education  Water expenditures
 Civil Status  Water consumption
 Household size  Availability of water
 Income  Monthly water bill
 Awareness
 Membership in organi-
zation

Water Utility

Watershed management protection program

Policies for the Protection of Mainit Watershed

 22

Figure 1. Conceptual framework showing the factors affecting household’s WTP

for the management and protection of Mainit Watershed.

Statement of Hypothesis and Assumptions

The study hypothesized that the residents of the urban barangays in

Alangalang, Leyte were willing to pay for the protection of Mainit Watershed, and

their willingness to pay is affected by the following factors:

1. Household water expenditures: Households spend a lot of money on

purchasing mineral or purified water from other sources since their water

system-connected tap cannot meet their demands, particularly for drinking and

cooking. Therefore, they are more willing to pay.

2. Awareness of the importance of managing and protecting watershed:

Residents who know what is watershed and what is the contribution of a

watershed to a stable water supply will be more willing to pay.

3. Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics:

 Income: Is expected to affect willingness to pay positively. The

higher the income, the more likely the household is willing to pay

for the improvement of management and protection of watersheds

that provide sustainable quality and quantity of water.

 23

 Age: Will positively affect the willingness to pay, i.e., older people

can afford certain expenses and have chosen to place significance on

improving a watershed to benefit their water demands.

 Sex: Female respondents are more likely willing to pay since they

are in charge of household management compared to men.

 Educational Attainment: Those with higher education is more aware

of the significance and effects of protecting watersheds. Therefore,

they are more willing to pay.

 Civil Status: Will also positively affect willingness to pay, i.e.,

married persons are more conscious of the harmful effects of

unstable drinking water, especially regarding health problems.

 Household Size: They are more likely to offer a lower bid amount

but are still willing to pay for their water demand because the larger

the household size, the more water is consumed.

 Membership of an organization related to the environment:

Members of households who belong to environmental organizations

are more aware of environmental issues.

 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS

Environmental Services - Services that promote human well-being through natural

ecosystems and processes.

Ecosystem Services - Provisioning, regulating, and supporting services to maintain

Earth's conditions through food, water, flood control, cultural benefits, and nutrient

cycling.

Maximizing Utility - Decision-making for satisfaction in limited resources, aiming to

help individuals and firms make best-interested choices.

Watershed - A watershed is a region of land that "sheds" water into a particular body

of water. A watershed exists for everybody of water. Rainfall and melting are

channeled into streams and rivers by watersheds. Lakes, bays, and oceans are among

the bigger bodies of water that these smaller one’s flow into.

Watershed management - the process of applying land use techniques and water

management practices to comprehensively manage the use of those land and water

resources to protect and improve the quality of the water and other natural resources

within a watershed.
 25

Watershed Protection - reduces the effects of flood, erosion, and water pollution,

protecting our community's lives, property, and the environment.

Water quantity - Indicates the stormwater runoff qualities related to the amount and

rate of the runoff to downstream areas because of land disturbance activities.

Water quality - The characteristics of water that are physical, chemical, thermal, and

biological. It is frequently described in terms of human consumption, entertainment,

and aesthetics.

Willingness to pay - the sum of money a person is willing to spend on a commodity

or service. This might be elicited via procedures for revealed or stated preferences.
 26

CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

Description of the Study site

Alangalang is a 2nd class Municipality in the 2nd District of Leyte. The

municipality has a land area of 150.54 square kilometers of 58.12 square miles,

constituting 2.38% of Leyte’s total area. Its population, as determined by the 2020

Census, was 57,185. This represents 3.22% of the total population of the Leyte

Province or 1.26% of the overall population of the Eastern Visayas region. The

municipal center of Alngalang is approximately 11°12' North, 124°51' East, on the

island of Leyte. Elevation at these coordinates is estimated at 41.6 meters or 136.6

feet above mean sea level (PhilAtlas, 2022).

Mainit River is in the province of Leyte, traversing the municipalities of Jaro,

Alangalang, and San Miguel with an area of 8,521.17 hectares. It is a stream in Leyte

with an average elevation of 17 meters above sea level (geoview.info).

 27

Figure 2 Map showing the study site

Figure 3 Map showing the study site

 28

Sampling method

The study used Crochan’s formula to determine the sample size. A simple

random sampling technique was used to select the sample respondents. The study

specifically included those households that connected to Alangalang Water System.

Cochran’s formula: n= Z2pqe²

Where:
n = sample size
z = z score (1.96)
p = sample proportion (0.50)
q = 1- sample proportion (1-0.50)
e = acceptable sample error (10% or 0.10)

Research design

Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the data and describe the

relationship among variables. Means, frequencies, percentages, and indices are the

descriptive measurements to be used.

Research instrument

The research instrument consists of six parts, structured and refined further

through a pre-test. It consists of both structured and open-ended questions necessary

to collect primary information. The survey contains the information: (1) the

respondent's water consumption and expenditures; (2) the respondent's awareness

about the watershed and its services; (3) the brief discussion, illustrations, and

enumeration of watershed services and contains existing status and scenario of

 29

planning protection program in Mainit Watershed and water user fee

institutionalization of the watershed and conditions based on their actions; and (4)

finally, their willingness to pay and domestic and how to institutionalize water user

fee.

The willingness to pay questionnaire has an initial question about their

socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. A scenario was provided to set the

mind of the respondents, followed by a dichotomous-choice referendum on the

amounts offered based on the pre-test result, such as P5, P10, P15, P20, P25, P30,

P50, P75, P100, P150, and over P200.

Data collection

Before the actual data collection, formal permission was sent to the barangay

captain or the assistant secretary and the household heads, explaining the purpose and

objectives of the study and the usage of data for research purposes only. The survey

was administered in person and assessed the respondents on correctly answering the

structured questionnaire to ensure that it would come up with a relevant and reliable

answer.

Variables of the study

The dependent variable used in the study was the willingness to pay (WTP)

for improved domestic water supply through the sustainable management and

protection of Mainit Watershed. The independent variables included in the study were

age, sex, education, civil status, household size, income, awareness, membership in an
 30

organization, water consumption, monthly water bill, water expenses, availability of

water, and bid amount (Table 1).

Variable Description
Dependent Variable:
WTP Willingness to pay (1=yes; 0=no)
Independent Variables:
Age Age of Respondents
Sex Sex (1- male; 2 - female)
Educ Number of years in school
CSTAT Civil Status (1- single; 2- married; 3- widowed;
4- separated
HHSIZE Number of household member
INCOME Household monthly income
AWARE Awareness about watershed (1=yes; 0=no)
MEMBER Membership in organizations related to the
environment conservation
H2OBILL Monthly water bill
H2OCONS Volume of water consumption
H2OEXPENSES Amount spent on mineral or purified water
H2OHRSAVAIL Availability of water (Number of hours)
BID Bid amount
Table 1. Variables used in the WTP method for the payments of Mainit Watershed
Protection

WTP model

WTP= ƒ (AGE, SEX, EDUC, CSTAT, HHSIZE, INCOME, AWARE, MEMBER,

H2OBILL, H2OCONS, H2OEXPENSES, H2OHRSAVAIL, BID)

The value of managing and protecting Mainit Watershed was assumed as a

function of the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respondents and

their awareness of the environmental services provided by the watershed ecosystem.

Dummy variables were also hypothesized that will affect respondents’ valuation.

The logit model hypothesized that the preferred choice by the respondents

between the two alternatives depends on the attributes of their environment along with

the welfare and utility enjoyed by these environmental assets. These derived benefits
 31

are expressed using the cumulative logistic probability function Pindcyk and

Rubenfeld, (1981) and Gujarati, (1992). This function is expressed as:

Pί = F (Zί) = F (βί+β2 WTP) = 1 1 + e−Zί

With the equation above, Pί is the probability that the suggested production

choice will be discarded through the given individual knowledge in relation to the

cost associated with the watershed protection, WTP; Z ᵢ is the unknown index whose

equivalents depend on the scenario or explanatory variables; and convey the based

natural logarithms equivalent to 2.7198 by extracting the natural logarithms on both

sides of the notation, equation be written as:

Log Pᵢ 1−Pᵢ=Zᵢ=a+ βXᵢ

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using a specialized software. Descriptive statistics

included minimum, maximum, means, standard deviation, frequencies, and

percentages. Meanwhile, Logistic regression was used to describe data and to explain

the relationship between one dependent binary variable and one or more nominal,

ordinal, in descriptive ratio-level independent, and the relationship between dependent

(WTP) and independent variables contingent valuation method was used.

Logistic regression analysis

The dichotomous choice approach was the bidding technique used in the

study, and data were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. The analysis

determined the factors influencing respondents’ decision to pay to manage and protect

Mainit Watershed. The logit model was chosen as the best statistical tool for analyzing
 32

data since the choice is a dichotomous type of response with only a “yes” and a “no”

option.

The dependent variable explicitly defined by the independent variables ranks

the relative significance of independents to assess the relative interaction effects

between the two kinds of variables and to gain insight into the impact of covariate

control variables. Odd ratios explained the usual effects of predictors’ variables.

Logistic regression estimates the most similarity after transforming the dependent

variables into a logit variable. In this manner, logistic regression estimates the odds of

given occurring events.

WTP scenario

The proposed Mainit watershed conservation program must guarantee stable

water quality and quantity and sustainable management. However, due to a shortage

of financial resources, the government cannot carry out this program independently

without assistance from external sources. The only practical way to fund this project

is through user fee contributions from households or household members connected to

Alangalang Water Supply System (AWASS). This fund will be provided for the

purpose of protecting watersheds.

 CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Distribution of Respondents by Location

The study's respondents were 100 household’s concessionaires of the

Alangalang water system in the Alangalang Poblacion. These include the households

of Blumentritt, Holy Child I, Holy Child II, Milagrosa, San Roque, Salvacion, San

Antonio, San Roque, and Sto Niño. Table 1 shows the distribution of household

respondents based on their location.

Table 2. Distribution of respondents based on their location, Poblacion Alangalang,

Leyte (2023)
Barangay Frequency Percent
Blumentritt 7 21.0
Holy Child 1 17 17.0
Holy Child 2 9 9.0
Milagrosa 11 12.0
Salvacion 14 14.0
San Antonio 21 9.0
San Roque 12 7.0
Sto. Niño 9 11.0
Total 100 100.0

Respondent's Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics

Table 3 presents the households’ demographic characteristics. The mean age

was 49.95 years old and is considered still in the working age. Mean educational

attainment was 10.84 years in school. It signifies that most of the respondents have

finished high school. According to Khan, (2013) those with higher education than the

primary level are more willing to pay.

 34

Regarding household size, family members range from 1 to 13 members. The

considerable household size is due to the extended family system of living together in

a single house which is common in a Philippine household. The mean household size

was 5.02, primarily three adults and one child per household and two earners per

household.

Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Minimum Maximu Mean Std.

m Deviation
Age 21 82 49.95 16.112
Education 2 15 10.84 2.852
Household
1 13 5.02 2.340
Size

As shown in Table 4, among the 100-sample respondent, females were

dominant, comprising 76 percent, while only 24 percent were males. This was

because most females were in charge of doing household chores while males were

working. Females positively affect their willingness to pay for the water supply

because they spend more time at home and require more water for domestic purposes

(Ayanshola et al., 2013). These respondents were married (59%), and the remaining

41% were single, separated, or widowed.

Most of these respondents are small business owners (32%). Sources of

income were farming (27%), government employees (18%), private employees

(18%), and construction workers (5%). Other sources of income include remittances

(36.96) from other family members working in different places, and (63.04%) were

dependent on government support.

 35

Table 4. Characteristics of the surveyed respondents connected to Alangalang Water

Supply System (AWASS), Leyte, Philippines (2023)

Frequency Percent

Sex
Male 27 27.0
Female 73 73.0
Total 100 100.0
Civil Status
Single 29 29.0
Married 59 59.0
Widowed 6 6.0
Separated 6 6.0
Total 100 100.0
Main Occupation
Farming 27 27.0
Construction
5 5.0
worker
Government
18 18.0
employee
Private employee 18 18.0
Small business 32 32.0
100 100.0
Other sources*
Remittance 34 36.96
Government
Support (4ps/MCCT,
Social Pension) 58 63.04

Total 92 100.00
Multiple Responses*

Table 5 shows that the average household income was PhP19,870.00 and a

median of PhP15,000.00. The result showed that income was beyond the food

threshold for a family of five in Leyte and Eastern Visayas. According to PSA, (2021)

a family of five in Eastern Visayas needed at least PhP7,904 per month to meet the
 36

family’s basic food needs. This amount represents the average monthly food threshold

for a family of five. In Leyte, the average monthly food threshold for a family of five

in Leyte (excluding Tacloban City) at PhP 7,835.

Individuals' choices and responses to valuation questions are influenced by

their income level, which correlates with their willingness to spend on environmental

goods, quality, or averting deterioration. Preference surveys frequently include

income (Carson et al., 2001).

Table 5. Households’ socioeconomic attributes

Minim Maxim Mean Median Std.

um um Deviation
Estimat
4,000.0 70,000. 19,870.0 15,000.0
ed Monthly 14390.41
0 00 0 0
Income
Other sources of income: Frequency Percent

Farming 17 17.0
Government employee 11 11.0
Private employee 4 4.0
Small business 22 22.0
Total 54

Respondent's awareness of watershed

The study evaluated household water users' awareness of the watershed. Table

6 shows that out of 100 respondents, only 33 percent were aware of what is

watershed, while the remaining 67 percent were not aware of watersheds.

Respondents with prior knowledge about watersheds were further asked regarding

their familiarity with it or their source of information.

 37

Table 6. Respondent's awareness of watershed

Response Frequency Percent

No 67 67.0
Yes 33 33.0
Total 100 100.0

The various sources of information regarding the watershed by the

respondents were shown in Table 7. Training information campaigns, whether run by

AWASS or not, are cited as a significant source of information by respondents

(47.37%). And because of the meetings about this water system held in each

barangay, watershed information is also covered. Additionally, some information was

obtained from their relatives and friends (42.11%). Radio (5.26%) and newspapers

(5.26%) were additional information sources, with radio being the most popular

among older people who prefer to listen instead of watching, reading, chatting, and

attending seminars.

Table 7. Source of respondents about watershed

Sources* Frequency Percent

Newspaper 1 2.63
Radio 2 5.26
Television 1 2.63
Relatives or Friends 16 42.11
Training information 18 47.37
campaigns, either by AWASS or
not/ seminar
Total 38 100.00
Multiple response*

Table 8 shows multiple responses on the perception of respondents about the

services offered by watersheds. In the study, the primary service mentioned by most
 38

respondents was the provision of water (31%). This finding highlights the significant

contribution of the watershed in meeting the water needs of urban households. In the

study, a minority of participants (1%) acknowledged the role of the watershed in

providing resources such as timber, rattan, animal, and plant products, as well as

environmental services like biodiversity conservation (1%), recreation (1%), and

irrigation (6%). The study highlights the various advantages a properly administered

watershed can provide societies.

Table 8. Respondent’s Perception of the functions of watersheds.

Functions* Frequency Percent

Primary source of water 31 31.0
Good source of timber, 1 1.0
rattan, animals, plants
product
Provide environmental 1 1.0
services like biodiversity
conservation
Recreation 1 1.0
Irrigation 6 6.0
40 40.0
Multiple response*

Table 9 shows the significance of managing and protecting watersheds for a

consistent water supply. Thirty-three percent (33%) of the respondents acknowledged

the importance of watershed management in guaranteeing a dependable water source.

Twenty-one percent (21%) and nine (9%) of respondent’s rate watershed need

protection as “very important,” “important,” and 3% out of 33% of respondents rate d

“moderately important” and “slightly important,” indicating a potential knowledge

gap or misunderstanding regarding the number of respondents who are only aware of

the watershed and its services that shows in Table 6 and Table 8.
 39

Table 9. Responses on how respondents rate the importance of a well-managed and

protected watershed for sustainable water supply

Responses Frequency Percent

Slightly important 1 1.0
Moderately important 2 2.0
Important 9 9.0
Very important 21 21.0
Total 33 33.0

On the other hand, respondents were also asked about their familiarity and

awareness of the existence of a watershed; as low as 33 percent out of 100

respondents expressed their understanding of the role/services of well-managed and

protected watersheds, as shown in Table 5. Many respondents pointed out that the

primary function of a watershed under proper management protection was to improve

water quality (82%), and absorb and store water (29%), and fewer respondents knew

that watersheds could reduce flood during rainy reasons (9%) given in Table 10.

Table 10. Respondent's perception of the role/services of well-managed and protected

watersheds

Reasons Frequency Percent

Absorb/store water to
29 29.0
make this available in the
future
Minimize flood during 9 9.0
the rainy season
Improve water quality 82 82.0
Total 120 120.0
Multiple responses*
 40

Only 4 percent of respondents are members of an organization that advocates

preserving the environment and natural resources: the Farmers Association (Table

11).

Table 11. Organizational Membership

Response Frequency Percent

No 96 96.0
Yes 4 4.0
Total 100 100

Household Water Consumption, Use, and Expenditures

Table 12 shows that the household average monthly water consumption was

14.06 m3, and minimum and maximum water consumption was 10 m 3 to 40 m3. The

volume of water consumed within a household varies with the household size and

water use. The families with the highest water consumption and monthly water bill

have a mean volume of 40 m3 per month used and a monthly payment of PhP689.000.

The little water consumed has a monthly cost of PhP160.000 for a 10 m 3 water use.

Due to the availability of alternative water sources like deep well and shallow hand

pumps, households with children will prefer their children to fetch water from

secondary sources as this will be cheaper than paying a higher rate for any

improvement (Ayanshola et al., 2013).

Alternative water sources aside from the water from the Alangalang Water
system include shallow hand pumps (76%), deep well (21%), rain collection (3%),
and water refilling stations (1%). Water taken from the water system and other water
sources like deep well, rain collections, and shallow hand pumps are used only for
cleaning (100%), bathing (94%), and washing (90%). Very few respondents use water
 41

for cooking (1%) and washing (1%). As informed by the LGU, the water from AWAS
is not adequately treated and is unsuitable for cooking and drinking. As a result, all
(100) respondents purchased purified and mineral water from water stations as their
source of potable water.

Table 12. The volume of water consumption, monthly water bill of households, uses
and their alternative water sources

N Minim Maxi Me Std.

um mum an Deviation
Average water consumption 1 14.
10 40 6.260
per month? (m3) 00 06
Average monthly payment 1 229 107.8
160.00 689.00
for water consumption? 00 .35 0
Alternative sources of Frequency Percent
water
Deep well 21 21.0
Shallow hand pump 76 76.0
Rain 3 3.0
Water refilling station 1 1.0
Uses of water from the Frequency Percent
AWAS
Drinking 1 1.0
Cooking 1 1.0
Bathing 94 94.0
Cleaning 100 100.0
Washing 90 90.0

When respondents were asked about water availability from the water system,
Table 13 shows that 45% have continuous access to water, i.e., 24 hours a day.
Conversely, the majority of the respondents accounting for 55%, have access to water
for only half of the day, i.e., 12 hours. The results show that it significantly affects
their daily duties and routines that depend on water.

Table 13. The Availability of Water connected to the Alangalang Water Supply
System (AWASS) of households in Alangalang, Leyte
 42

Availability of Frequency Percent

Water
(Hours)
24 45 45.0
12 55 55.0
100 100.0

A significant number of participants, precisely 98%, have experienced a

disruption in their water supply from the water system. On the other hand, only 2% of

the respondents said that their water supply had never been interrupted (Table 14).

The results of this study highlight how prevalent water supply issues are among the

households investigated, showing that water supply interruptions are a common

occurrence.

Table 14. Respondents who experience disrupted water supply from the water
system

Response Frequency Percent

No 2 2.0
Yes 98 98.0
Total 100 100.0

Based on the findings presented in Table 15, the study revealed that a

substantial proportion of participants (73%) attributed water supply interruptions to

issues such as broken pipes, pipe leakage, and clogged pipes. Furthermore, 58% of

respondents reported insufficient water supply, which contributes to water shortages

in key areas where water is processed. Additionally, 5% and 1% of reported incidents

were linked to flooding in the water source and illegal connections, respectively.

These findings shed light on the prevalent obstacles and infrastructure-related

challenges that impact the reliability of water supply among households.

 43

Table 15. Causes of disrupted water supply according to the respondents

Causes Frequency Percent

Broken pipes/ pipe leakage/clogged pipes 80 73.0
Illegal connections 1 1.0
Insufficient water supply 58 58.0
Deforestation 1 1.0
Flooding in the source of water 5 5.0

Table 16 shows the outcomes of scarce or irregular water access on

households' living conditions, economic status, and everyday activities. According to

surveyed respondents, the results of unstable water supply comprise delayed

household chores (63%), increased expenses incurred in potable water (25%), and

health-related issues (3%).

Table 16. Consequences of unstable/unsafe water supply to the households

Consequences* Frequency Percent

Health problems 3 3.0
High expenditure on
25 25.0
buying water
Delayed housework 63 63.0

Table 17 presents the respondents' opinions on the quality of the water. The

result of the study showed that 98% of respondents rated the water quality provided

by the water system as fair, which means that respondents only use water for cleaning,

bathing, and watering plants, not for drinking). In comparison, only 2% think that

water provided by the water system is good.

Table 17. The perceived water quality delivered from Alangalang Water Supply
System (AWASS)

Description Frequency Percent

Poor
Fair 98 98.0
 44

Good 2 2.0
Excellent

Table 18 shows respondents' assessment of the quality of water derived from

their faucets. Regarding its color, the majority (62%) of the respondents perceived

that the color of the water coming from their tap was unsatisfactory, while (22%)

said water was very unsatisfactory. Most of the time, water coming out of the

faucet is not clear, and most especially during rainy days, the water is colored brown

and cannot be used even for cleaning. Regarding its taste, 89% of respondents

assessed that water is unsatisfactory, and 11% rated it unsatisfactory. In terms of

smell majority (56%) perceived water coming from their faucet as neither

satisfactory nor unsatisfactory, while in terms of clarity, respondents perceived water

to be neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory. This indicates that the water from their

faucet is unfit for drinking or cooking. According to Ayanshola et al., (2013)

consumers were more willing to pay for better water if they thought their family

members were dissatisfied with it.

Table 18. Urban Households’ perceived water quality derived from Alangalang Water
Supply System (AWASS)

Perceived water quality Frequency Percent

Color
No response 16 16.0
Very unsatisfactory 22 22.0
Unsatisfactory 62 62.0
Neither satisfactory
nor
unsatisfactory
Very satisfactory
Taste
 45

Very unsatisfactory 89 89.0

Unsatisfactory 11 11.0
Neither satisfactory
nor
unsatisfactory
Very satisfactory
Smell
Very unsatisfactory 2 2.0
Unsatisfactory 14 14.0
Neither satisfactory
nor 56 56.0
unsatisfactory
Very satisfactory 28 28.0
Cleanliness or Clarity
Very unsatisfactory 1 1.0
Unsatisfactory 24 24.0
Neither satisfactory
nor 58 58.0
unsatisfactory
Very satisfactory 17 17.0
Availability
Very unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory 4 4.0
Neither satisfactory
nor 58 58.0
unsatisfactory
Very satisfactory

Respondent’s Willingness to Pay and their Reasons

One of the study’s objectives was to determine the respondent’s willingness to

pay for improved domestic water supply through the sustainable management of

Mainit Watershed. The CVM study was successfully implemented, with a high

positive response rate. This is mainly due to the effective illustrations, discussions,

and scenarios presented to the respondents.

 46

Table 19 shows that 76.0 percent of the surveyed households were willing to

pay for improved watershed management, while 24 percent were not willing to pay.

This is slightly higher than the 60 percent willingness to pay of households in Metro

Manila for improved watershed management (Calderon et al., 2006). In addition, the

willingness to pay for improvements to the water supply attributes of water quality

includes regular water supply, water pressure in taps, and filtering.

Chowdhury, (1999) used the CVM to estimate Dhaka slum-dwellers’ WTP for

safe drinking water. The result showed that they were willing to pay for water to

cover its cost, suggesting that higher water charges would be financially feasible to

generate funds for water supply system investment.

Table19. Respondent’s willingness to pay for the protection of Mainit watershed

Response Frequency Percent

Not WTP 24 24.0
WTP 76 76.0
Total 100 100.0

Table 20 shows the primary motivations for contributing to watershed

management. The reasons the respondents are willing to pay include: To ensure the

long-term welfare of watershed services (53%), to protect and preserve the water

supply (40%), and enjoy the benefits derived from watershed improvements (20%),

and 2% of the respondents expressed the intention of concern about the future

generations.

Table 20. Reasons why respondents were willing to pay to protect Mainit watershed
as the source of water in Alangalang, Leyte
 47

Reasons* Frequency Percent

To contribute and to 40 40.0
protect or to preserve
the water supply
To ensure the long- 53 53.0
term welfare of
watershed services
To enjoy the
20 20.0
derived benefits of
watershed
improvements
To pass on these 2 2.0
resources to future
generation
Total 115 115.0
Multiple responses*

In terms of why respondents are not willing (protest bidders), table 21 shows

the reasons. The protest bidders believed watershed protection was the government’s

responsibility (21.0%), while others (3.0 %) said they could not afford to pay, given

their limited income.

Table 21. Reasons why respondents were not willing to pay for the sustainable
management and protection of Mainit Watershed, Leyte

Reasons* Frequency Percent

It is government
21 21.0
sole responsibility
Cannot afford to
3 3.0
pay
Total 24 24.0

Respondents were asked about the amount the respondents were willing to

pay. Table 22 revealed that participants' mean willingness to pay was 25.13 pesos,

with a standard deviation of 18.092 pesos. In a year, the mean willingness to pay for

the protection of Mainit Watershed is PhP301.56, nearly the annual payment of Metro

Manila to Improved Watershed Management with a mean WTP of PhP29.00 a month

 48

(Calderon et al., 2006). Meanwhile, the mean WTP of Domestic Water Users in

Quezon for Improved Conservation of Mt. Banahaw de Lucban Watershed,

Philippines, is PhP71.53mo. (Agudilla et al., 2022).

Table 22. The amount of Willingness to Pay for the protection of Mainit Watershed in
Alangalang, Leyte, Philippines (2023)

N= Mini Maxim Mean Std.

100 mum um Deviation
Amount of
76 5 100 25.13 18.092
WTP (monthly)

The determinants of respondents’ WTP for the sustainable management and

protection of the Mainit Watershed

The factors affecting the respondent's willingness to pay are displayed in

Table 23. The explanatory variable predicted the value of willingness to pay, as

indicated by the percentage of accurate predictions (76.0%), Chi-square findings

(11.51), Log Likelihood findings (49.354386), and Psuedo R2 (10. 54%).

According to the findings of the logit analysis, socioeconomic factors affected

households' payment decisions. Age and income are significant variables with a 0.05

level of significance. Other variables were not significantly different from zero, which

suggests that it did not affect respondents’ decision to pay.

Age showed a negative correlation with a willingness to pay for the protection

of Mainit Watershed. The result emphasized that with the decreasing age of

respondents, the willingness to pay increased. Younger respondents placed a higher

value on watershed resources because of the growing environmental concern of the

 49

young generation. The younger generations will inevitably pay the price because they

do not want their voice to be disregarded, and younger ages are more likely to value

environmental conservation (Dardanoni et al., 2021).

Another significant variable was income. It showed a positive relationship to

respondents’ willingness to pay. As manifested in the result, households with higher

monthly income the more willing to pay. And according to the findings of Calderon

et al., (2006) with a similar study, the findings imply that water users with higher

income levels have higher WTPs for improved watershed management. In addition, as

the income of a household increase and they are satisfied with their basic needs,

individuals’ ability to decide to pay is high to enhance their environmental asset (like

potable water) (FAO, 2006).

Moreover, there is a significant relationship between the respondents’ water

expenses to the willingness to pay for the protection of Mainit Watershed. The result

indicates that if a household has a higher expenditure on water, the more they are

willing to pay for the protection of the watershed. According to Ayanshola et al.,

(2013) this is an indication that people need improvement on the system, and they are

ready to pay the price despite the high cost when it comes to water.

Table 23. Determinants affecting respondents’ WTP for the protection of Mainit
Watershed using logit-regression analysis

Standard
Variables Coefficient P - value Error Interval
Cons 2.797 0.105 1.724 6.175
AGE -0.031 0.087 0.018 0.005
SEX 0.657 0.275 0.602 1.836
EDUC 0.001 0.996 0.091 0.179
CSTAT -0.261 0.632 0.544 0.805
HHSIZE -0.029 0.841 0.146 0.256
 50

INCOME 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000

AWARE 0.782 0.192 0.599 1.957
MEMBER 0.123 0.832 0.580 1.259
H20EXPENSES 0.002 0.074 0.001 0.003
Log Likelihood 49.354386
Chi-square 11.51
Pseudo R2 0.1044
Number of
observations 100

Assessment of Institutional Arrangements

To arrange an institutional framework for domestic water user fees, a

collection mechanism for the institutionalization of management fees was asked of the

respondents. As shown in Table 24, the respondents with a positive valuation agreed

that the user fee be channeled through their monthly bill (60.53%), while 39.47%

want a separate agency to collect the fees.

Table 24. Respondents preferred collection mechanism of domestic water user fee for
the protection of Mainit Watershed, Alangalang, Leyte (2023)

Collection Frequency Percent

Mechanism
Amount to be added to
water bill as a trust fund,
46 60.53
managed mainly by the
proposed council
A separate agency must
30 39.47
be the one to collect the fees
Total 76 100

Household respondents were further asked about the appropriate charging of

water user fees (Table 25). The majority (76.32%) of the respondents asserted that the

predominant factor should be the quantity of water consumed. The findings of this

study indicate that there exists a willingness among individuals to pay based on their

water usage. This observation may show a perception of equity in the association
 51

between the fee and the number of resources consumed. A minority of participants

(9.21%) considered the household size and income variables as possible determinants

for implementing charges. Furthermore, a small proportion of the participants,

precisely 5.26%, preferred a uniform amount mutually agreed upon. The findings of

this study underscore the significance of considering various variables in determining

fee arrangements.

Table25. The appropriate basis for charging water user fees for the protection of
Mainit Watershed, Alangalang, Leyte, (2023)

Basis Frequency Percent

Volume of water used 58 76.32
Number of members of
7 9.21
households
Income 7 9.21
Agreed amount 4 5.26
Total 76 100.00

Since most water users choose to channel their payment through the water

bills, Table 26 shows the appropriate payment period for the water user fee among the

households in the urban barangays of Alangalang. All or 100 percent of the

respondents with positive bids prefer a monthly payment are the appropriate payment

period for the water user fee among households. Households perceive such payment

intervals as more convenient and manageable. The study results indicate that

respondents preferred distributing the financial burden over smaller, regular

installments, as evidenced by the lack of significant responses towards the options of

one-shot payment and annual payment.

In a study by Sule and Okeola, (2010) in Oyun, Kwara State, people are

willing to pay N1,100 per month for a reliable water supply system, while in Ibadan,
 52

Oyo State, households pay N1,080.80 monthly for improved water supply. Paying

more monthly will improve the system's sustainability and long-term improvement

(Omonona and Fajimi, 2011).

Table 26. Appropriate period of payment for the water user fee among the households
in urban area of Alangalang, Leyte, (2023)

Period Frequency Percent

One shot payment 0 0.0
Annual payment 0 0.0
Monthly 76 100.0
Total 76 100.0

Diverse perspectives were elicited from participants when queried regarding

the optimal organization to oversee or administer the amassed financial resources.

Results indicated that 38% of the participants favored the local government unit

(LGU). Meanwhile, 34% preferred the Alangalang Water Supply System (AWASS)

to manage the fund. Furthermore, a proportion of 7% of the participants proposed that

the allocation of funds should be managed by the barangay, which is a local

community unit in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that a proportion of 21% of the

participants refrained from responding (Table 27). The present study underscores the

necessity for additional discourse and agreement formation among concerned parties

concerning the suitable entity to oversee the amassed monetary resources.

Table 27. Responses on who will handle the funds collected

Responses Frequency Percent

No response 21 21.0
LGU 38 38.0
Barangay 7 7.0
 53

AWAS 34 34.0
100 100.0
.
 CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The study conducted an assessment of the willingness to pay among urban

households in Alangalang for the purpose of enhancing domestic water supply

through sustainable management of the Mainit Watershed in Leyte. The research

objectives encompassed various aspects, including determining the socioeconomic

and demographic characteristics of the households, evaluating their domestic water

consumption and expenditures, examining their awareness of the watershed and its

environmental services, assessing their willingness to pay for improved water quality

and quantity through sustainable watershed management, proposing policy

recommendations for safeguarding the Mainit watershed, and identifying the

determinants influencing households' willingness to pay within the context of

sustainable watershed management.

A total of 100 respondents participated in the study, with the researchers

utilizing the dichotomous choice referendum format to elicit the respondents'

willingness to pay for improved water supply through sustainable management and

protection of the Mainit Watershed. Logit regression analysis was employed to

identify significant variables related to the respondents' decision to contribute to the

protection of the watershed.

The findings of the study revealed that the majority of the respondents were

married females, with an average age of 49.95 years. Most respondents had completed

high school, with an average educational attainment of 10.84 years. The households
 55

had an average size of 5.02 members. The primary sources of income reported by the

respondents included farming, construction work, government and private

employment, and small businesses, with an average income of P19,870.00. On

average, the households consumed 14.06 m3 of water, resulting in an estimated cost

of PhP229.35. As the water from the existing system was not potable, all respondents

purchased drinking water from refilling stations, amounting to an estimated monthly

expenditure of PhP508.20.

The study successfully implemented the Contingent Valuation Method

(CVM). Despite the respondents' limited awareness about watersheds, 76 percent of

the households expressed a willingness to contribute financially to improve their

water supply and protect the Mainit Watershed, which served as one of their water

sources. The primary motivation for willingness to pay among the respondents was

ensuring the long-term welfare of watershed services. Conversely, the non-bidders

believed that the responsibility for watershed protection lies with the government.

Age, income, and water expenses were identified as significant variables

influencing respondents' willingness to pay. The analysis indicated that younger

households were more willing to pay, although age exhibited a negative correlation

with willingness to pay. In contrast, income demonstrated a positive correlation, with

earning families displaying a higher motivation to contribute. The average bid from

positive bidders was PhP25.13 per month.

Regarding the collection mechanism, the majority of respondents preferred the

monthly water bill as the avenue for collecting the funds, with charges based on the

volume of water consumed. It was also agreed upon that the local government unit

(LGU) should oversee the collection of the funds.

 56

In conclusion, this study sheds light on the willingness to pay among urban

households in Alangalang for improved domestic water supply through sustainable

management of the Mainit Watershed in Leyte. The findings highlight the importance

of socioeconomic factors, such as age, income, and water expenses, in shaping

households' decisions to contribute financially. The research contributes to the

understanding of the determinants and motivations underlying households'

willingness to pay within the context of sustainable watershed management.

Implications

Based on the results of this study, the following implications were formulated:

Respondents in urban areas displayed a lack of awareness regarding watershed

functions, likely due to inadequate documentation and communication efforts within

the community.

1. Despite their limited knowledge of watersheds, the majority of household

respondents showed a positive and significant willingness to pay. This

underscores their recognition of the importance of preserving ecosystem

services and ensuring the availability of vital resources.

2. The respondents' perception of water supply disruptions primarily focused on

issues like pipe breakage or leakage, indicating a limited understanding of

watersheds' role. This highlights the need for effective communication and

education to enhance their understanding of watershed significance in water

supply management.
 57

3. The respondents' dissatisfaction with water quality emerged as a significant

motivator for their willingness to pay, even if it meant potential increases in

water expenses. This emphasizes their value for access to high-quality water.

4. It is imperative to ensure that funds collected from water user fees are

exclusively allocated to improving primary and secondary water sources. This

underscores the importance of transparent financial management to effectively

address water supply challenges.

5. Concerns on high connection charges, commonly among water users, act as

barriers limiting respondents' contributions to watershed enhancement and

other major water source development. Addressing these concerns and

providing affordable financial participation options can foster greater

community engagement.

6. Respondents' suggestions highlight the need for visible and consistent

improvements in water supply. This fosters a sense of progress and encourages

increased contributions from households once their basic water needs have

been met.
 58

Recommendations

1. Foster collaboration with community leaders to enhance awareness regarding

the significance of watersheds through effective information, education, and

communication initiatives.

2. Establish a supportive policy framework to encourage public-private

partnerships in the improvement of water supply services, promoting efficient

resource allocation and innovation.

3. Recognize the site-specific nature of determinants and ensure that water

supply authorities identify and incorporate relevant factors appropriately into

their policies, considering the unique characteristics of each location.

4. Building upon the findings of this study, further research should be conducted

to investigate the specific characteristics of watersheds and identify factors

that influence water supply, aiding in the development of more targeted and

effective strategies.
 59

LITERATURE CITED

Abayneh, A. (2004). Water Supply II : Lecture Notes for Environmental Health

Science Students, Hawassa University, prepared in collaboration with the
Ethiopia Public Health Training Initiative, The Carter Center, Ethiopia
Ministry of Health, and Ethiopia Ministry of Education [Online], Available
at http://www.cartercenter.org/ resources/ pdfs/ health/ ephti/ library/
lecture_notes/ env_health_science_students/ LN_Water_Supply_II_final.pdf[
(Accessed 29 June 2015).

Agudilla, M.A., Racelis, D.A., Calderon, M., Camacho, L.D., Predo, C.D., & Ancog,
R.C. (2022). Willingness to Pay of Domestic Water Users for Improved
Conservation of Mt. Banahaw de Lucban Watershed, Quezon, Philippines.
Philippine Journal of Science.

Aliño, P. M., & Respicio, A. G. (2011). Status and Trends of Philippine Coral Reefs.
Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns,
Australia.

Allan, J. D., & Castillo, M. M. (2007). Stream ecology: Structure and function of
running waters. Ecology (Second). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
http://doi.org/10.2307/2265800
Amponin, J. A. 2006. Payment for watershed Protection Services: Are Domestic
water Users in Tuguegarao City Willing to Pay? Resources, Environment
and Economic Center for Studies, INC.

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H.
(1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal register,
58(10), 4601-4614.

Ayanshola, A., Sule, B.F., & Salami, A.W. (2013). Evaluation of Willingness to Pay
for Reliable and Sustainable household Water Use in Ilorin, Nigeria.
Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management, 6, 754-762.

Bai, Y., Zhi, W., Li, Y., Ye, H., Yang, A., & Li, M. (2019). Factors influencing rural
households' willingness to pay for improved water supply: A case study in
China. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua, 68(7),
497-506.

Beaumais, O., Briand, A., Millock, K., & Nauges, C. (2014). What are Households
Willing to Pay for Better Tap Water Quality? A Cross-Country Valuation
Study. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep01036
 60

Brooks, K.N.; P.F. Ffolliott; H.M. Gregersen And J.L. Thames. 1991. Hydrology and
the Management of Watersheds. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa

Brookshire, D. S., 1982. Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic
approach

Calderon, M., & Camacho, L.D. (2005). A Water User Fee for Households in Metro
Manila, Philippines.

Calderon, Margaret & Anit, Kharmina & Palao, Leo & Lasco, Rodel. (2012).
Households’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Watershed Services of the
Layawan Watershed in Oroquieta City, Philippines. Journal of Sustainable
Development. 6. 10.5539/jsd. v6n1p1.

Cameron, T. A., & Quiggin, J. (1994). Estimation using contingent valuation data
from a" dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. Journal of
environmental economics and management, 27(3), 218-234.

Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent valuation:

Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19,
173-210.

Carson, R. T., 1996. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies:

comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods

Castro, M.C., & Pasquire, N.C. (2018). Determinants of willingness to pay for
improved domestic water supply in the Philippines: A study based on
household surveys. Water Resources and Economics, 22, 1-10.

Celeste N., 2009. Estimating the benefits of watershed protection for sustainable
water supply in Sibalom Natural Park, Sibalom, Antique. MSc thesis,
Faculty of the Gradual School, Visayas State University, Visca, Baybay,
Leyte, 166 pp.

Chatterjee C., Triplett R., Johnson C. K. & Ahmed P. 2017. Willingness to pay for
safe drinking water: a contingent valuation study in Jacksonville, FL. Journal
of Environmental Management 203, 413–421.

Costanza, R., D'arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., … Van
Den Belt, M. (1997, May). The value of the world's ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature. Springer Science and Business Media LLC.

Courant, P. And R. Porter (2001). "Averting Expenditures and the Cost of Pollution",
JEEM, 8,1981

Cruz, R. V. O. (1999). Integrated land use planning and sustainable watershed

management. Journal of Philippine Development, 26(1), 27-49.
 61

DENR-FMB (Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Forest and

Management Bureau). 2011 Philippine Forestry Statistics. p22. Retrieved
from http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/2011PFS.pdf

Dardanoni, V., & Guerriero, C. (2021). Young people' s willingness to pay for
environmental protection. Ecological Economics, 179, 106853.

Dhungana, Ananta & Baral, Basanta. (2017). Factors Affecting Willingness to Pay for
Improved Water Supply System in Rural Tanahu, Nepal. Janapriya Journal
of Interdisciplinary Studies. 5. 1. 10.3126/jjis. v5i0.17836.

Dinar, S., Jeng, W., & Ratnawati, E. L. (2007). Willingness to pay for better water
quality in Jakarta. Water Policy, 9(4), 363-382.

ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN WELL-BEING, (2005). Retrieved May 3, 2017,

from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment website: file:///C:/Users/water
%20quality/Downloads/MEA%20synthesis%202005.pdf

Elazegui, D. D., & Combalicer, E. A. (2004). Realities of the watershed management

approach: the Magat watershed experience (No. 2004-21). PIDS Discussion
Paper Series.

FAO. (1999): Poverty Alleviation and Food Security in Asia, RAP Publications,
Thailand.

Francisco, H., & Salas, J. (2004). Realities of watershed management in the

Philippines: The case of the Iloilo-Maasin Watershed management. Makati
City, Philippines: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Gujarati, D. (1992). Essentials of Econometrics. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Hamre, L., Warburton, M., & Butt, M. (2017). Watershed Function and Services: A
State-of-the-Art Review and Synthesis. Journal of Environmental
Management, 197(1), 251-265.

Herminia A. Francisco and Agnes C. Rola (July 2004). Realities of Watershed

Management in the Philippines: Synthesis of Case Studies. Discussion paper
series no. 2004-24

Khan, J.A., Ahmed, S. (2013). Impact of educational intervention on willingness-to-

pay for health insurance: A study of informal sector workers in urban
Bangladesh. Health Econ Rev 3, 12.

Kayaga, Ahmed (2003). Paying for water services: effects of household

characteristics Elsevier Science Ltd. Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 123-132
 62

Kim, H.J. And Cho, Y. (2002). Estimating willingness to pay for reduced copper
contamination in Southwestern Minnesota. Journal of Agricultural and
resource Economics 27(2):450-463.

Koundouri, P., Nauges, C., & Tzouvelekas, V. (2003). Technology adoption under
production uncertainty: Theory and application to irrigation technology.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(3), 692-707.

Lansigan And Rillera, 2009. Philippine Master Plan for Climate Resilient Forestry
Development.

Macatangay A. P., Bautista E. A., Arlene Sarah B., Francisco A. R. P., Sarmiento S.
M. G., Buenviaje M. G., An I. L., 2015. Operational performance of purified
water business in Batangas City, Philippines: basis of enhanced business
operation initiatives. Asia Pacific Journal of Academic Research in Business
Administration 1(1):11-19.

Magtibay B. B., 2004. Water refilling station: an alternative source of drinking water
supply in the Philippines. 30th WEDC Conference, Vientiane, Lao PDR, pp.
590-593

Malayang, B. 2001, Political and Institutional Transformation of Southeast Asia,

Paper presented at the Global Change and Sustainable Development in
Southeast Asia, SARCS Regional Science-Policy Conference in Chang Mai,
Thailand, 17-19 February 2001.

Martin-Ortega, Julia [5], Ferrier, Robert C. [3], Gordon, Iain J. [3], Khan, Shahbaz [5]
Water ecosystem services: a global perspective. Year of publication: 2015.

Margaret M. Calderon and Leni Diamante Camacho. 2005. A Water User Fee for
Households in Metro Manila, Philippines.

Margaret M. Calderon, Leni D. Camacho, Myrna G. Carandang, Josefina T. Dizon,

Lucrecio L. Rebugio & Noel L. Tolentino (2006). Willingness to pay for
improved watershed management: Evidence from metro manila, Philippines,
Forest Science and Technology, 2:1, 42-50, DOI:
10.1080/21580103.2006.9656298

Merrett, S. (2002). Deconstructing households' willingness-to-pay for water in low-

income countries. Water Policy.

Michael Boyle And Suzanne Kvilhaug. Welfare Economics Explained: Theory,

Assumptions, and Criticism by The Investopedia team. Updated June 06,
2022.

Michael Prior. Environmental Values. Vol. 7, No. 4 (November 1998), pp. 423-441 (19
pages). Economic Valuation and Environmental Values
 63

Mississippi Water Resources Research Institute, Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality, & Msu Landscape Architecture. (2013a).
Community Watershed Protection.

Mississippi Water Resources Research Institute, Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality, & Msu Landscape Architecture. (2013B). Managing
Your Home Watershed.
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (ED.). (n.d.). National Wild and Scenic
Rivers: Mississippi. Retrieved May 3, 2017, from
https://www.rivers.gov/mississippi.php
Omonona, B.T. And Fajimi, F.O. (2011), Household’s willingness to pay for
improved water supply services in Ibadan metropolis of Oyo State, Nigeria,
New York Science Journal, 4(4), 72-76.
(http://www.sciencepub.net/newyork).

Ortile, D.H., Garcia, R.R., & Canavire-Bacarreza, G.J. (2016). Valuing improved
domestic water supply in the Philippines: An application of the contingent
valuation method. Ecological Economics, 124, 34-41.

Philippine Master Plan for Climate Resilient Forestry Development, 2015 Published
Online; January 2016

Pindyck, R.S. And Rubinfeld, D.L. (1981). Econometric Models and Economic
Forecasts. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Quy Van Khuc 2013. Household’s Willingness-To-Pay Estimation For Safe Drinking
Water: A Case Study In Vietnam
Rola, A., Franciso, H., And Liguton, J. (2004). Winning the Water War: Watersheds,
Water Policies and Water Institutions.

Santos, J.M., & Singrus, M.C. (2015). Understanding willingness to pay for improved
domestic water supply in the Philippines: A choice experiment approach.
Water Policy, 17(1), 31-48.

Schleich, J., Sagebiel, J., Ehrhart, K. M., & Uehleke, R. (2014). Factors influencing
German households' willingness to pay for green electricity. Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning, 16(1), 45-67.

Shibata, H. And J.S. Winrich, "Control of Pollution When the Offended Defend
Themselves", Economica, 50,1983.

Shion Guha 2007. Valuation of Clean Water Supply by Willingness to Pay Method in
a Developing Nation: A Case Study in Calcutta, India
 64

Sule, B.F. And Okeola, O.G. (2010), Measuring willingness to pay for improved
urban water supply, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply –
WSTWS. IWA Publishing, 10(6), 933- 941.

Tabios, G. Iii Q. And C. C. David. 2002. Competing Uses of Water: Cases of Angat
Reservoir, Laguna Lake, Groundwater Systems of Batangas City and Cebu
City. Paper presented at the Water Resources Management Policy Forum,
Philippines Institute for Developmental Studies, National Economic and
Development Authority, Makati City.

Tavárez H., Elbakidze L., Abelleira-Martínez O. J., Ramos-Bendaña Z. & Bosque-

Pérez N. A. 2021. Willingness to pay for gray and green interventions to
augment water supply: a case study in rural Costa Rica. Environmental
Management 69 (4), 636–651.

Team, C., Sauer, J., Schilling, J., & Shikur, S. (2020). Determinants of willingness-to-
pay for improved water supply in rural Ethiopia. Environmental Economics,
11(3), 81-88.

United States, Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Water. (2009,

January 15). National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress.
Retrieved September 14, 2016, from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2009_01_22_
305b_2004report_2004_305breport.pdf. Annotation: Report Number EPA
841-R-08-001
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, November 09). Overview:
Selecting and Using Recovery Potential Indicators. Retrieved May 03, 2017,
from https://www.epa.gov/rps/overview-selecting-and-using-recovery-
potential-indicators
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2017, April 26). Healthy
Watersheds: Materials for Technical Audiences. Retrieved May 03, 2017,
from https://www.epa.gov/hwp/healthy-watersheds-materials-technical-
audiences
Venkatachalam L. 2015. Informal water markets and willingness to pay for water: a
case study of the urban poor in Chennai City, India. International Journal of
Water Resources Development 31 (1), 134–145.

Whitehead, J.C. & Haab, Timothy. (2013). Contingent Valuation Method.

10.1016/B978-0-12-375067-9.00004-8.

Whittingnton, C.K. And Lauria, D.T., (1995). Contingent Valuation: Water Quality in
the Philippines. The Environment Development World Bank Washington
DC.
 65

World Bank (2003). Philippines Environment Monitor (PEM): Water quality. 28297.
P. 6. Retrieved October 23, 2012, from
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/
IB/2004/05/24/000012009_20
040524135608/Rendered/PDF/282970PH0Environment0monitor.pdf

Websites:
https://www.unl.edu/

https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/ocean/waterquality

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_regression).

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/water-supply

https://www.msnucleus.org/watersheds/watersheds.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/public/water_sources

http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2023/0322_legarda1.asp

(http://www.unesco.org/science/wes/meeting/eur_paris_water_98.html).

https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/v/iwrm/Implementation/Water economics/Water
pricing/Water-tariffs/index.html
 66

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1. Survey questionnaire

Name of Respondent: _________________________Date: __________
Address:__________________________________
Good morning! I am _______________________________, a fourth year BSES
student taking BS in Environmental Science at Visayas State University –
Alangalang, Leyte. As part of the requirements for graduation is to accomplish
our thesis requirement. Our research will answer important questions and
problems about the situation of watershed where in the importance of water to the
individual. The information you will provide will be kept with the utmost
confidentiality.

I. Respondents’ Awareness about watershed management:

1. Are you aware about watershed?
Yes [ ] proceed #2 No [ ] proceed #7
2. Please indicate in the table about your familiarity with the watershed. If yes,
please check your source of information.
*NP- News Paper
* RD- Radio
*TV- Television
*R/D- Relatives or friends
*WS- Water System
3. Which do you think are the services of a watershed? (Do not provide the op-
tions)
_____ Watershed is primary source of water
_____ Watershed could be a good source of timber, rattan, animals and plants
product
_____ Watersheds provide environmental services like biodiversity
conservation (home for wildlife),
_____ Recreation,
_____ Carbon sequestration
_____ Source of energy (hydroelectric power plant)
_____ Water purification
_____ Irrigation
_____Others,
4. In your personal view, how would you rate the importance of managing and
protecting this watershed to promise a stable supply of water. Using a scale 1-
5 where 1 is not important and 5 very important.
 67

5. Respondents with 2-5: Well managed and protected watershed is necessary

because it:
_____ absorb store water to make this available in the future
_____ Minimize flood during rainy season
_____ Improve water quality
_____ Others, Specify____________________________________
6. Respondents with 1 answer: Well managed and protected watershed is not
important because it:
1 2 3 4 5
Not Slightly Moderately Important Very
important important important important

______ It does not affect my household

______ I don’t believe in their role in upgrading water quality
______Others,Specify
7. Are you a member of an organization or committee that is concerned
about environment and resource conservation?
Yes [ ] No [ ]

8. If yes, name the organization:

II. Brief Discussion, Illustrations, Enumeration of watershed services,

Existing status of health of the watershed with illustration.
1. Define and describe a watershed.
i. Physical- A watershed or drainage basin refers to a system con-
trolled by topography which defines how water will flow
(MathScienceNucleus). You refer to a watershed by the largest
body of water that the creeks, river, or streams feed into. For
example, all creeks that flow in the Mainit River are part of the
Mainit Watershed.
Waray-waray language - An watershed us aini hiya han kin
titikangan han tubig para pag control han daloy han tubig
tikadto ha mga iba iba nga kin aagian han tubig parihas han
sapa ngan salog.)
https://www.msnucleus.org/watersheds/watersheds.htm
ii. Hydrologic- Simply put, a watershed is a drainage basin. Hy-
drologists refer to the area of land that contributes water flow to
surface water outlet as its watershed, and this basin represents
the area to be considered when issues regarding water quality
and quantity are encountered along rivers and in lakes.
Waray waray language - ini na watershed an na iistakan hin
tubig na tikang ha uran nga us ana nakakaapikto han kalidad
han tubig nga naagi ha sapa ngan salog.
 68

iii. Biological- A watershed is an area of land that drains or “sheds” water into
a specific waterbody. Every part of water has a watershed. Watersheds
drain rainfall and snowmelt into streams and rivers. These smaller bodies
of water flow into larger ones, including lakes, bays, and oceans.
Waray waray language - ha kada parti han watershed nga
tikang ha uran nahihingadto ha iba iba na parti han tubig
tikadto ha dagat.

a. What are the environmental services of a watershed?

i. Provisioning services
Obtained directly from the ecosystem such as
drinking water, irrigation, business purposes.
ii. Regulating services
 Water regulation
 Flood protection
 Water purification
 Climate regulation
 others

iii. Supporting services

 Natural treatment of water
 Water cycle
 Water management
 69

iv. Cultural services

Which is non-material benefiting that people obtain
from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive
development, education, recreation and aesthetic
experiences.

b. Describe Mainit Watershed

Mainit Watershed is within the municipality of Jaro, Alangalang and San
Miguel. The main tributaries of Mainit watershed are Cabayungan and Mainit River.
Cabayungnan to Villa Conuelo, Daro, Calinawan, Jaro Proper, Olotan (Iraya). Mainit
River to Rubas, Canhandugan, Uguiao, Tinambacan,, Pitogo, Buri, Buenavista
(Ilawud) and merge it in Tombo Alangalang. With the different activities such as
deforestation, ongoing development, land conversion, irrigation and etc.It can affect
the health of watershed which leads to poor water quality and insufficient water
supply.
WTP Scenario
As the status of Mainit watershed, the proposed Mainit watershed
conservation program must guarantee stable water quality and quantity, as well as
sustainable management. However, due to a shortage of financial resources, the
government is unable to carry out this program on its own without assistance from
external sources. The only practical way to fund this project is through user fee
contributions from households or household members connected from Alangalang
Water System (AWAS). This fund was provided for the purpose of protecting
watersheds.

III. HOUSEHOLDS’ WILLINGNESS TO PAY

1. Given the information above on the status of the Mainit Watershed are you
willing to pay for its sustainable management and the provision of reliable wa-
ter quality and quantity?
[ ]Yes [ ]No

2. If yes, how much additional payment are you willing to give? Please encircle
the amount below.

5 10 15 20 25 30 50 75 100 150 200 above 200

3. If yes, what factors contributed to your decision to pay the stated maximum
amount?
[ ] To contribute and protecting or preserving the water supply
[ ] To ensure long term welfare of watershed services
[ ] Income capability
[ ] To enjoy the derived benefits of watershed improvements
[ ] Accountability of implementing agency
[ ] To pass on these resources to future generation
Others,
_________________________________________________________
 70

4. To respondent with zero valuation in question 1, what is your primary reason

for giving zero bids?
[ ] Watershed is not important for me
[ ] I never been to the forest and therefore there is no such reason to
pay for its protection
[ ] It is government sole responsibility
[ ] I don’t have money I can’t afford to pay
[ ] I’m satisfied with the present situation
[ ]Others, ________________________________________
IV. Water Consumptions and Expenditures:
1. What is your average water consumption per month?
______________(m3)
2. What is your average monthly payment for your water consumption?
Php__________
3. Do you buy water like mineral or purified water from other sources?
Yes [ ] No [ ]

4. If water is purchased, how much is your monthly expenses? ___________

5. In a day, how many hours water is available? ________hrs.
6. Have you experienced disrupted water supply already?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
7. What do you think are the causes of disrupted water supply?
______ broken pipes/ pipe leakage
______ Illegal connections
______ Insufficient water during dry season
Insufficient water during rainy or wet season
______ Clogged pipes
______ Deforestation
______ Flooding in the source of water
______ Sedimentation and siltation
______Others, specify
8. What are the consequences of unstable water supply to your household?
______ Health problems
______ High expenditures of buying water
______ Delay house works
______Others, specify
9. What are the major uses of water in your household? Rank the following
having one (1) as the highest.
______ Drinking
______ Cooking
______ Bathing
______ Cleaning
______ Laundry
______ others, ______________________
10. How would you describe water quality derived from faucet;
______ Poor (no longer usable)
 71

______ Fair (water could be used for cleaning, watering plants etc.
but not for drinking)
______ Good (water can be used for drinking using sample
purification, cooking, cleaning etc.)
______ Excellent (can be drunk directly from the faucet)
11. Households’ perceived water quality derived from their faucets:

Water Quality Response (1- Very unsatisfactory; 2 –

Unsatisfactory; 3 – Neither satisfactory nor
unsatisfactory; 4 – Satisfactory; 5 – Very
Satisfactory)
a. Color

b. Taste

c. Smell

d. Cleanliness/Clarity

e. Availability

12. Do you have alternative source of water?

Yes [ ] No [ ]
13. What is your alternative source of water?
[ ] Shallow well
[ ] Deep well
[ ] River
[ ] Shallow hand pump
[ ] Rain
[ ] Water refilling stations
V. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
1. For you, what is the most suitable mechanism to collect the watershed man-
agement and protection fee? (Please check only)

____________Amount to be added to water bill as trust fund, manage

mainly by the proposed council
____________A separate agency or office must be the one to collect
the fees
____________Others, ____________
2. What do you think is the appropriate basis of charging fess?
____________Volume of water used
____________Number of member of households
____________Income
____________Agreed amount (flat rate)
____________Others, specify_______________
3. For you, what is the best period of payment?
 72

____________One shot Payment

____________Annual payment
____________Monthly payment
_____________Twice a year
_____others,specify_____________________________________________

4. Who do you think is/are the best person or agency to manage or handle the
fundcollected?
_______________________________________________________________

VI. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Sociodemographic Responses
Attributes
Age (HH): _____________
Sex __________
Education (Years of ______
schooling)
Civil Status
Household Size

Household Information related to the ff.

1. Occupation? (main occupation that coincide more than one half of work time)
1.1 main livelihood: 1.2 Secondary occupation:
[ ] farmer [ ] Remittance
[ ] construction worker [ ] 4ps/MCCT
[ ] government employee [ ]Senior Citizen
[ ] Private employee [ ]
[ ] businessman
[ ] others, __________________
2. Estimated annual income? (Gross income):
Monthly: __________
15- days: ___________
Others: _____________
 73

APPENDIX 2. Photo Documentation

Photo Documented from the Main Source of AWASS (2023)

 74

Factors Affecting the Insufficient Water Supply (2023)