Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:38:42.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The economic value of improved air quality in urban Africa: a contingent valuation survey in Douala, Cameroon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2014

Hermann Pythagore Pierre Donfouet ,
Joseph Cook  and
P. Wilner Jeanty
Hermann Pythagore Pierre Donfouet
Affiliation:
CREM, UMR 6211, University of Rennes I, 7 Place Hoche, 35 065 Rennes Cedex, France. E-mail: donfouetz@yahoo.fr
Joseph Cook
Affiliation:
Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, USA. E-mail: jhcook@u.washington.edu
P. Wilner Jeanty
Affiliation:
Kinder Institute for Urban Research & Hobby Center for the Study of Texas, Rice University, USA. E-mail: pwjeanty@rice.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of ‘time to think’ and ‘ballot box’ on willingness-to-pay, while providing the first empirical evidence on assessing the benefits of an air quality improvement program in urban Africa. Our hypothetical referendum scenario proposes to reduce the air pollution related morbidity rate in Douala, Cameroon by 25 per cent in exchange for a one-time surcharge on the electricity bill of each respondent. We find that on average WTP decreases by nearly one-fourth when allocating respondents time to think but markedly increases when we use a ‘ballot box’ approach allowing respondents to state their willingness privately. Our results suggest that on average households are willing to pay US$0.42 per month (0.2 per cent of household annual income). We conclude that total citywide benefits are unlikely to exceed the costs of implementing such a program at this point, although this situation may change quickly with increasing economic growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , October 2015 , pp. 630 - 649
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Afroz, R., Hassan, M.N., Awang, M., and Ibrahim, N.A. (2005), ‘Willingness to pay for air quality improvements in Klang Valley Malaysia’, American Journal of Environmental Sciences 1(3): 194–201.Google Scholar
Arrow, K., Solow, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., and Shuman, H. (1993), ‘Report of NOAA panel on contingent valuation method’, Federal Register 58(10): 4601–4614.Google Scholar
Bedate, A.M., Herrero, L.C., and Sanz, J.A. (2010), ‘Ex ante and ex post valuations of a cultural good. Are preferences or expectations changing?’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55(1): 127–140.Google Scholar
Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G.C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N., and Freeman, P. (2008), ‘Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment’, Economic Journal 118(525): 114–137.Google Scholar
Brouwer, R. and Bateman, I.J. (2005), ‘Temporal stability and transferability of willingness to pay for flood control, and wetland conservation’, Water Resources Research 41(3): 1–6.Google Scholar
Bulte, E., Gerking, S., List, J.A., and de Zeeuw, A. (2005), ‘The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated values: evidence from a field study’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49(2): 330–342.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A. (1988), ‘A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15(3): 355–379.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A. and Huppert, D.D. (1989), ‘OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17(3): 230–246.Google Scholar
Cameron, T.A. and James, A. (1987), ‘Efficient estimation methods for “closed-ended” contingent valuation surveys’, Review of Economics and Statistics 69(2): 269–276.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T., Hanemann, M., Kopp, R.J., Krosnick, J.A., Mitchell, R.C., Presser, S., Ruud, P.A., and Smith, V.K. (1994), ‘Prospective interim lost use value due to DDT and PCB contamination in the southern California bight’, Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pursuant to Task Order 56-DGNC-2-50070: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, La Jolla, CA: Natural Resource Damage Assessment.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T, Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., et al. . (1998), ‘Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA panel's no-vote recommendation’, Review of Economics and Statistics 80(3): 484–487.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E. and Meade, N.F. (2001), ‘Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence’, Environmental and Resources Economics 19(2): 173–210.Google Scholar
Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., and McCollum, D.W. (1997), ‘Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33(2): 151–162.Google Scholar
Cook, J., Whittington, D., Canh, D.G., Johnson, F.R., and Nyamete, A. (2007), ‘The reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue, Vietnam’, Economic Inquiry 45(1): 100–114.Google Scholar
Cook, J., Jeuland, M., Maskery, B., and Whittington, D. (2012), ‘Giving stated preference respondents “time to think”: results from four countries’, Environmental and Resource Economics 51(4): 473–496.Google Scholar
Cummings, R. and Taylor, L.O. (1999), ‘Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method’, American Economic Review 89(3): 649–665.Google Scholar
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J (1993), An Introduction to the Bootstrap, New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Gbinlo, E. (2006), ‘Evaluation du coût social de la pollution de l'air par les taxis motos à Cotonou, Bénin’, Institut de l'énergie et de l'environnement de la Francophonie (IEPF), Quebec.Google Scholar
Groothuis, P.A. and Whitehead, J.C. (2002), ‘Does don't know mean no? Analysis of ‘don't know’ responses in contingent valuation questions’, Applied Economics 34(15): 1935–1940.Google Scholar
Haab, T.C. and McConnell, K.E. (1997), ‘Alternative methods for handling negative willingness to pay in referendum models’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(2): 251–270.Google Scholar
Haab, T.C. and McConnell, K.E. (2002), Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non Market Valuation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W. and Rutström, E.E. (2002), ‘Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods’, in Smith, V.L. (ed.), Handbook of Results in Experimental Economics, New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Johansson, P., Kristrom, B., and Maler, K.G. (1989), ‘Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: comments’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(4): 1054–1046.Google Scholar
Kealy, M.J., Montgomery, M., and Dovidio, J.F. (1990), ‘Reliability and predictive validity of contingent valuation: does the nature of the good matter?’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19(3): 244–263.Google Scholar
Kristrom, B. (1990), ‘A nonparametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies’, Land Economics 66(2): 135–139.Google Scholar
Leggett, C.G., Kleckner, N.S., Boyle, K.J., Dufield, J.W., and Mitchell, R.C. (2003), ‘Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews’, Land Economics 79(4): 561–575.Google Scholar
List, J.A. and Gallet, C.A. (2001), ‘What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?’, Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 241–254.Google Scholar
Loomis, J.B. (1989), ‘Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(1): 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, K.E., Strand, I.E., and Valdes, S. (1998), ‘Testing temporal reliability and carry-over effect: the role of correlated responses in test-retest reliability studies’, Environmental and Resource Economics 12(3): 357–374.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, J. and Liebe, L. (2008), ‘Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?’, Environmental and Resource Economics 39(4): 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, L.A. and Hammitt, J.K. (2009), Final Report of the Sub-saharan Africa Refinery Project Health Study: Volume I-A, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Strazzera, E., Genius, M., Scarpa, R., and Hutchinson, G. (2003), ‘The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites’, Environmental and Resource Economics 25(4): 461–476.Google Scholar
Subade, R.F. (2005), Valuing Biodiversity Conservation in a World Heritage Site: Citizens' Non-use Values for Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park, Philippines, Singapore: Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia.Google Scholar
Svedsater, H. (2007), ‘Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 51(1): 91–107.Google Scholar
Turnbull, B.W. (1976), ‘The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored, and truncated data’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 38(B): 290–295.Google Scholar
Vaughan, W.J. and Rodriguez, D.J. (2001), ‘Obtaining welfare bounds in discrete-response valuation studies: comment’, Land Economics 77(3): 457–465.Google Scholar
Wang, H. and Whittington, D. (1999), Willingness to Pay for Air Quality Improvements in Sofia, Bulgaria, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Wang, X.J., Zhang, W., Li, Y., Yang, K.Z., and Bai, M. (2006), ‘Air quality improvement estimation and assessment using contingent valuation method, a case study in Beijing’, Environmental Monitoring Assessment 120(1–3): 153–168.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, Q., and Wang, W. (2007), ‘Residents' willingness to pay for improving air quality in Jinan, China’, Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment 5(2): 12–19.Google Scholar
Whitehead, J.C., Groothuis, P.A., and Blomquist, G.C. (1993), ‘Testing for non-response and sample selection in contingent valuation’, Economics Letters 41(2): 215–220.Google Scholar
Whittington, D. (1998), ‘Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries’, World Development 26(1): 21–30.Google Scholar
Whittington, D. (2002), ‘Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries’, Environmental and Resource Economics 22(1): 323–367.Google Scholar
Whittington, D., Kerry, S.V., Okorafor, A., Okore, A., Long, L.J., and McPhail, A. (1992), ‘Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22(2): 205–225.Google Scholar
Whittington, D., Lauria, D.T., Wright, A.M., Choe, K., Hughes, J.A., and Swarna, V. (1993), ‘Household demand for improved sanitation services in Kumasi, Ghana: a contingent valuation study’, Water Resource Research 29(6): 1539–1560.Google Scholar
Whittington, D., Sur, D., Cook, J., et al. . (2008), ‘Rethinking cholera and typhoid vaccination policies for the poor: private demand in Kolkata, India’, World Development 37(2): 399–409.Google Scholar
WHO (2012), World: Exposure to Particulate Matter with an Aerodynamic Diameter of 10 μm or Less (PM10) in 1100 Urban Areas, 2003–2010, Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
World Bank (2004), Etude sur la qualité de l'air en milieu urbain: Le cas de Douala, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Yaduma, N., Kortelainen, M., and Wossink, A. (2013), ‘Estimating mortality and economic costs of particulate air pollution in developing countries: the case of Nigeria’, Environmental and Resource Economics 54(3): 361–387.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Donfouet Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Donfouet Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 123.9 KB