Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Health and Environmental Benefits of Reduced Pesticide Use in Uganda: An Experimental Economics Analysis

Contents:

Author Info

  • Bonabana-Wabbi, Jackline
  • Taylor, Daniel B.

Abstract

Two experimental procedures were employed to value both health and environmental benefits from reducing pesticide use in Uganda. The first experiment, an incentive compatible auction involved subjects with incomplete information placing bids to avoid consuming potentially contaminated groundnuts/water in a framed field experimental procedure. Three experimental treatments (information, proxy good, and group treatments) were used. Subjects were endowed with a monetary amount (starting capital) equivalent to half the country’s per capita daily income (in small denominations). Two hundred and fifty seven respondents were involved in a total of 35 experimental sessions in Kampala and Iganga districts. The Kampala sample consisted of urban (professional) residents while the Iganga sample consisted of rural (groundnut farmer) residents. Analyses with Tobit models indicated that subjects are willing to pay significant amounts to avoid ill health outcomes, although these values vary by region, by treatment and by socio-economic characteristics. Gender differences were important in explaining bid behavior, with male respondents in both study areas bidding higher to avoid ill health outcomes than females. Consistent with a priori expectation, rural population’s average willingness to pay to avoid ill health outcomes was lower (by 11.4 percent) than the urban population’s willingness to pay perhaps reflecting the poverty level/low incomes in the rural areas and how it translates into reduced regard for health and environmental improvements. Salaried respondents in Kampala were willing to pay more than those on hourly wages. Tests of hypotheses suggested: (i) providing brief information to subjects just prior to the valuation exercise does not influence bid behavior, (ii) subjects are indifferent to the source of contamination: willingness to pay to avoid health outcomes from potentially contaminated water versus groundnuts are not significantly different, and (iii) the classical tendency to free-ride in public goods provision was observed in both urban and rural areas, and this phenomenon was more pronounced in the urban than the rural area. The second experimental procedure, choice experiments, involved 132 urban respondents making repeated choices from a set of scenarios described by attributes of water quality, an environmental good. Water quality was represented by profiles of water safety levels at varying costs. Analysis using a conditional (fixed effects) logit model showed that urban subjects highly discount unsafe drinking water, and were willing to pay less for safe agricultural water, a result not unexpected considering that the urban population is not directly involved in agricultural activities and thus may not value agricultural water quality as much as drinking water quality. It was also found that subjects’ utility increased with the cost of a water sample (inconsistent with a downward sloping demand curve), suggesting perhaps that they perceived higher cost water to be associated with higher quality water. Advertisements for bottled water in Uganda would have consumers believe that higher cost bottled water is higher quality.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/6441
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association) in its series 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida with number 6441.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea08:6441

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Email:
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Experimental auctions; Choice experiments; Crop Production/Industries; Environmental Economics and Policy; Health Economics and Policy;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Smith, Vernon L, 1976. "Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 274-79, May.
  2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
  3. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Norton, George W. & Reaves, Dixie Watts, 1997. "Economic Analysis Of Environmental Benefits Of Integrated Pest Management," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(02), December.
  4. Brethour, Cher & Weersink, Alfons, 2001. "An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide reduction," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 219-226, September.
  5. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
  6. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
  7. Nick Hanley & Jorunn Grande, & Begoña Álvarez-Farizo & Carol Salt & Mike Wilson, . "Risk perceptions, risk-reducing behaviour and willingness to pay: radioactive contamination in food following a nuclear accident," Working Papers 2001_4, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
  8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
  9. Cuyno, Leah C. M. & Norton, George W. & Rola, Agnes, 2001. "Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: a Philippine case study," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 227-233, September.
  10. Jayson Lusk & T Schroeder, 2004. "Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks," Artefactual Field Experiments 00096, The Field Experiments Website.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Probst, Lorenz & Houedjofonon, Elysée & Ayerakwa, Hayford Mensah & Haas, Rainer, 2012. "Will they buy it? The potential for marketing organic vegetables in the food vending sector to strengthen vegetable safety: A choice experiment study in three West African cities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 296-308.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea08:6441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.