Kunskap, attityder och värdering av dricksvatten. Resultat från en nationell studie av hushåll med kommunalt dricksvatten

Report, 2025

The report presents the results of a national valuation study that has mapped Swedish households’ willingness to pay to avoid various types of disruptions in the drinking water supply. The report also includes an analysis of drinking water consumers’ knowledge of and attitudes towards drinking water supply. To ensure a safe and secure drinking water supply, preventive measures that involve investments are required. To motivate and determine the extent of these measures, knowledge about how society is affected by different types of disruptions in the drinking water supply is needed. If the consequences of the disruptions can be expressed as socioeconomic costs, a costbenefit analysis can be conducted where the total benefits of the measure are compared with the costs and negative effects on society. The results of such an analysis show whether an additional measure is socio
economically profitable.

Previous studies have been conducted to map parts of the consequences and socio economic costs that can arise when there are problems with the drinking water supply. However, so far there has been a lack of information on how Swedish drinking water consumers value access to a safe drinking water supply. As the water tariff is based on the costs of organising and operating the water supply system, it may not accurately reflect the actual value of water for households. A national valuation study of Swedish households with municipal water was therefore conducted to map their willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid the following situations on one (1) occasion for different durations: A) no drinking water is supplied (1 day, 1 week, and 1 month); B) drinking water is supplied, but it must be boiled for human consumption (1 day, 1 week, and 1 month), and C) drinking water is supplied, but the water use is restricted due to water shortages (1, 3, and 6 months during the summer). As part of the study, the households’ knowledge of and attitudes towards the drinking water supply were also investigated.

A majority of the households have a positive WTP to avoid the three analysed situations. The average WTP is highest (about SEK 1 300 as a onetime payment) for the two longer durations for situations A and B, and the longest duration for situation C. The only factor that significantly affects the willingness to pay is the household’s disposable income. The higher the income, the higher the WTP. The results can be used to estimate the total benefit to households of avoiding a particular supply failure and can be used in a costbenefit analysis to evaluate a measure. However, the benefit to households is only part of the total socioeconomic benefit of a measure. Examples of other benefits are avoided costs for both private enterprises and public  institutions. The results also show that more than half of Swedish drinking water consumers do not know where the drinking water for their households comes from. Despite limited knowledge, most drinking water consumers consider it important to conserve water and favour authorities imposing restrictions on water use in the event of drought. The results also show that a majority almost always choose tap water over bottled water. Furthermore, they do not seem to be too concerned about the drinking water supply to their households today but are more pessimistic about the future.