Krystyna Rauba
Białystok Technical University
Poland
Social acceptance of investments in sewage management on
the deurbanised areas
Summary
In the paper there are shown the results of examinations of the
willingness to pay for the use of communal sewage treatment service in three
chosen districts determined with the use of CVM method. The districts chosen to
the research do not possess the systems of communal sewage treatment. Most of
households solves the problem with sewage by using cesspools.
Introduction
One of the tasks of districts is to provide habitants with the system
of sewage treatment. However the investments in water supply and sewage
disposal need considerable financial outlays. Moreover after completion of
project, the enterprise which is responsible for providing services, incur
costs which later reflects in the level of charges for sewage paid by clients
who are the habitats of district. That is why, while planning the sewage policy
the district should take into account the opinion of local community to make a
decision about possible construction or extension of sewage system. To
accomplish this objective it can be used Contingent Valuation Method (CVM).
While planning the level of prices for sewage
treatment service it is necessary to bear in mind the rule of the reimbursement
of water service costs which was formulated in Water Frame Directive[1].
The term ‘water service costs’ described in the directive has the same meaning
as water and sewage service. The total
reimbursement of these services means the cover of operators costs ,
environmental and resource costs by charges made by clients.
1. The subject of the examination
The examinations connected
with the sewage management on the area of not sewered districts were done in
three districts: Zbójna, Miastkowo and Dubicze Cerkiewne.
The district of Zbójna is situated in
Łomża county. In 19 villages on the area of 18 579 ha (186 km2)
there live 4570 habitants. The district is not sewered and does not possess the
sewage treatment plant. The sewage from the districts are taken to sewage
treatment plant in Łomża which is 20 km far from Zbójna. However 80% of households use water-pipe
network and 25% - telephone service. Landscape amenities and natural
environment wealth are main tourist attractions of this district. The central and east part of the district
are located within protected landscape area ‘Drumliny Zbójenskie’[2].
The district of Mistkowo is situated on the west part
of Łomża county. In 22 villages on the area of 11 485 ha (115 km2)
there live about 4500 habitants. The large part of villages is sewered, whereas
the district is not sewered and does not have a sewage treatment plant. Sewage
from he districts of Zbójna and Miastkowo are taken 20 km away to a
sewage treatment plant in Łomża[3].
The district of Dubicze Cerkiewne is located in
Hajnówka county nearby the Białowieża forest on the area of
protected landscape of high touristic and landscape amenities. In 17 villages
and 29 towns on the area of 15 144 ha (151 km2) there live 1994 habitants. During last years
in this district there were done many district-planning changes among other
things all villages were connected to municipal pipe network and the village of
Dubicze Cerkiewne was sewered. In the future the district is planning to sewer
other villages and towns, but also to build communal sewage treatment[4].
In all three analysed districts 90% of sewages is
stored in cesspools.
2. The
characteristics of examination method
To study the opinions of habitants on completion of communal sewage
treatment in chosen districts there was used Contingent Valuation Method (CVM).
It is based on questionnaire examinations conducted among responders who were
interested in particular good or service.
The pollster can ask a question to people who are polled in the form of
WTP (Willingness To Pay), which means the level of price which they can pay for
particular good or service or in the form of WTA (Willingness To Accept) which
means how much they can take for tolerating disadvantageous changes in analysed
element or limiting the access to it. Generally, it is assumed that WTP is used
to estimate the value of proecological project and environmental benefits,
while WTA to assess the ecological loss caused by the emission of pollutions to
the environment[5].
In the world this method is used to estimate rare and threatened
species of plants and animals[6]
or to assess the actions decreasing flood hazard[7]
.
The examinations connected with the quality of water sources were
conducted for example in France. As the results show, both industry and
agriculture do not incur the costs caused by contamination of water sources.
The largest part in the water protection expenses have households. Each group
expressed willingness to pay for improvement of quality of river water at the
level of maximum 200 euro. This declared amount did not allow to cover the
costs generated by households (500 euro) and agriculture (230 euro).
There was also made an attempt to use Contingent Valuation Method in
Poland. The examinations of environment value based on this method were held by
Warsaw Ecological Economics Centre attached to Faculty of Economics Sciences at
University of Warsaw. The aim of one of the examination was to estimate Biebrza
swamps. Respondents were asked about their willingness to pay for the
protection of this area. The second question concerned the estimation of the
quality of Oligocene water in Warsaw. The widest known examination is the one
(called ‘Baltic’), in which the habitants of Poland were asked how much they can
pay to prevent eutrophication of Baltic Sea. Taken actions effected in the
decrease of the number of closed seaside resorts and renovation of life in the
sea.
Questionnaire examinations held in the districts of Zbójna,
Miastkowo and Dubicze Cerkiewne were based on a question in a form of WTP. The
questionnaire was built of three parts. The first one had introductory
questions, which let to assess the level of respondents’ knowledge about sewage
management issues in particular
district. The second part of the questionnaire contained the questions about
the ways and problems with sewage disposal from households and the knowledge of
problems connected with water contamination on the area of the district, but
also the interest of respondents in extension of communal sewage treatment. The
respondents were also asked questions about the cost of sewage discharge and
the frequency of cesspools emptying (in a case they were owned by respondents).
WTP question was formulated with reference to three initial amounts.
The first amount was determined by taking into account only the costs of
exploitation of sewage disposal and treatment system (price I), the second one
covered the costs of exploitation and amortisation of the system (price II),
while planning the third one there were taken into account the costs of
exploitation, amortisation and profit of enterprise which provided service
(price III). In Table 1 there are shown suggested levels of prices for
particular district.
Table 1.
Characteristic of suggested levels of prices for particular district
|
District |
Current average cost of sewage disposal zł/m3 |
Price I zl/m3 |
Price II zl/m3 |
Price III zl/m3 |
|
Zbójna
|
4,50 |
4,59 |
5,86 |
7,03 |
|
Dubicze
Cerkiewne |
13,05 |
3,18 |
8,86 |
10,63 |
|
Miastkowo |
18,68 |
5,24 |
8,71 |
10,45 |
Source: Own study on he
basis of data obtained form districts
In case when
respondents did not accept the level of suggested amount, they could propose
maximal amount, which they were inclined to pay for solving the problem with
sewage and give also the reason why
they did not choose suggested prices.
3. The description of results of questionnaire examinations
held in particular districts
Altogether there were done 250 questionnaires.
Statistical analysis of obtained results was
done on the basis of SPSS programme using
‘Analysis-Regression Binary – Logistic’ procedures.
The willingness to pay for communal sewage
treatment shown 118 people (47,2%).
Among those who did not want to pay, 67
respondents claimed that sewage treatment should be free of charge. What is
more, 34 of respondents admitted that they could not afford to pay for
construction of sewage treatment plant, while 10 of them stated that if a new
sewage treatment plant was built it would not improve the situation of sewage
treatment in particular district.
Moreover, 13 of respondents admitted that they are tired of paying taxes
for social aims, 3 of them did not see the problem with sewage treatment and 5
gave other reasons.
Statistically significant variables were shown
in Table 2 and they show: the agreement to build a waste treatment plant
(WWTP), perceiving the lack of water (WATS) as substantial problem, people who
walk voluntary in the open air (WALK), the age of respondents (AGE).
Table 2.
Statistically
significant variables in a regression equation and their significance in a
model
|
|
Type of a factor |
|||
|
B |
Wald |
Significance |
||
|
Constant |
|
-3,412 |
21,055 |
0,000 |
|
Variables |
WWTP |
1,489 |
8,077 |
0,004 |
|
WALK |
0,828 |
7,880 |
0,005 |
|
|
WATS |
0,782 |
5,543 |
0,019 |
|
|
AGE |
0,017 |
3,035 |
0,081 |
|
Source: Own
study
As the above model
shows, the people who agree with waste plant construction (WWTP) have a will to
pay for it 
, which is something expected.
People who perceive the lack of water (WATS) as a substantial problem,
also agree to pay for sewage treatment 
. This result can be explained by the lack of sources of high
quality water which connected with the purity of surface water contaminated by
disposal of treatable sewage. Other statistically
significant variable was the one which described respondents who walk voluntary
in the open air (WALK). Those people are ready to pay for sewage treatment 
. That is why it can be concluded that people who run active
life style and care about environment, have a will to pay for the construction
of sewage treatment plant to prevent the degradation of environment by disposal
of treatable sewage to surface water or to the ground.
Other statistically significant variable is the age of respondents. Elderly
people show a willingness to pay, whereas younger people are not ready to do it
. This situation can be caused by problems with
migration from countryside to cities. Young people want to move to bigger
cities or to go abroad to find better job, while elderly people would like to
have sewage treatment problems on their area solved. Perhaps old people have
higher savings. Moreover, unemployment is much higher among young people
especially in this part of Poland.
Conclusions
The method of questionnaire examinations
based on WTP question can be used to examine the level of social acceptance of
investments into sewage management in a district. Te result of examinations can
be useful for districts while making decisions about investments in communal
water supply and sewage treatment.
The examinations which were held in three districts showed that most of
habitants agree to build a sewage treatment plant (88,4%).
Not everyone is inclined to pay for its construction. Most of respondents
do not want to pay higher charges than the current ones for sewage disposal and
treatment. As the results of examinations show, many people can not afford to
pay more and some of them think that water and sewage services should be free
of charge. That is why the substantial problem is how to obtain funds to build
sewage treatment plans when the habitants can not afford to cover the costs of
their construction and the cost of their exploitation in the future.