ABSTRACT
The results of the market survey of the year 2004–2005 differ with those of the 2011 market study. These differences are as follows:
2004–2005 study: the general average of payroll is US$ 19.60 per month per client (here predominantly the owners of residential houses and centric housing uses, intended for room rental, offices and mini apartments).
2011 study: in a general average of payment per spreadsheet of water consumption is of US$ 17.66 per month per client (here predominantly the owners of houses with uses of urban single-family housing, with few houses for rent).
From the market study of 2004–2005, it can be deduced that the stratum with an IPR per monthly payroll between US$ 3 and US$ 5 is located within the division of groups comprised as follows: “University students, between 17 and 40 years old, who considers that the current payroll payment is normal, and the amount and quality is small and limited.” After the study and after having handled statistically the information collected, the only thing that does not match with what initially was proposed in the hypothesis was cheap payment; instead, the university students considered it a standard amount (neither expensive nor cheap).
2004–2005 study: 10% of respondents are willing to pay more than US$ 15; and in turn, of these 10.8% have a monthly income between US$ 301 and US$ 1000.
Of the five respondents who exceed US$ 1000 in monthly income, only one is willing to pay more than US$ 15. The three respondents who earn more than US$ 1500 have a DPI between US$ 0 and US$ 2.
Of the sample, 91% of the respondents agree that it is purchased or expropriated, or only administered by the municipality through the company providing the service.
2004–2005 study: the incremental availability of monthly payroll is US$ 5.86.
2011 study: 3.8% of the 1183 respondents would be willing to pay on average US$ 22 per month.
A limitation to ensure the sustainability of the potable water supply system for the city under study is the quantity and quality of water available now and the imminent need to manage the financial resources for the acquisition of the farms, to maintain and control the micro-basins permanently.
The perception that users have of the scarcity of the water resource and its poor quality in the distribution system is directly proportional to the value assigned through the DIP in the market study.
The population is convinced that regardless of their occupational condition, monthly income, graduation or academic degree, reforestation increases the quantity and improves the quality of the water; also, they know that it attracts rainfall and that the vegetation cover serves to store and accumulate water in the basin.
