Health and Environmental Benefits of Reduced Pesticide Use in Uganda: An Experimental Economics Analysis
AbstractTwo 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 InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper 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.
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
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:
- NEP-AGR-2008-11-18 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2008-11-18 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENV-2008-11-18 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2008-11-18 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-HEA-2008-11-18 (Health Economics)
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.:
- 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.
- 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.
- Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
- 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.
- Brethour, Cher & Weersink, Alfons, 2001.
"An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide reduction,"
Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 219-226, September.
- Brethour, Cher & Weersink, Alfons, 2001. "An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide reduction," Agricultural Economics: The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 25(2-3), September.
- Smith, Vernon L, 1976. "Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 274-79, May.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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: The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 25(2-3), September.
- Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.