IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i6p1759-d216582.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smallholder Agroprocessors’ Willingness to Pay for Value-Added Solid-Waste Management Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Olaoluwa Omilani

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 200284, Nigeria)

  • Adebayo Busura Abass

    (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Regional Hub for Eastern Africa, Dar es Salaam 11101, Tanzania)

  • Victor Olusegun Okoruwa

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 200284, Nigeria)

Abstract

The paper examined the willingness of smallholder cassava processors to pay for value-added solid wastes management solutions in Nigeria. We employed a multistage sampling procedure to obtain primary data from 403 cassava processors from the forest and Guinea savannah zones of Nigeria. Contingent valuation and logistic regression were used to determine the willingness of the processors to pay for improved waste management options and the factors influencing their decision on the type of waste management system adopted and willingness to pay for a value-added solid-waste management system option. Women constituted the largest population of smallholder cassava processors, and the processors generated a lot of solid waste (605–878 kg/processor/season). Waste was usually dumped (59.6%), given to others (58.1%), or sold in wet (27.8%) or dry (35.5%) forms. The factors influencing the processors’ decision on the type of waste management system to adopt included sex of processors, membership of an association, quantity of cassava processed and ownership structure. Whereas the processors were willing to pay for new training on improved waste management technologies, they were not willing to pay more than US$3. However, US$3 may be paid for training in mushroom production. It is expected that public expenditure on training to empower processors to use solid-waste conversion technologies for generating value-added products will lead to such social benefits as lower exposure to environmental toxins from the air, rivers and underground water, among others, and additional income for the smallholder processors. The output of the study can serve as the basis for developing usable and affordable solid-waste management systems for community cassava processing units in African countries involved in cassava production.

Suggested Citation

  • Olaoluwa Omilani & Adebayo Busura Abass & Victor Olusegun Okoruwa, 2019. "Smallholder Agroprocessors’ Willingness to Pay for Value-Added Solid-Waste Management Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1759-:d:216582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1759/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1759/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cawley, John, 2008. "Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 281-292, July.
    2. Raney, Terri & Anríquez, Gustavo & Croppenstedt, André & Gerosa, Stefano & Lowder, Sarah K. & Matuschke, Ira & Skoet, Jakob, "undated". "The role of women in agriculture," ESA Working Papers 289018, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    3. Mirajul Haq & Usman Mustafa & Iftikhar Ahmad, 2007. "Household s Willingness to Pay for Safe Drinking Water: A Case Study of Abbottabad District," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 1137-1153.
    4. Pek, Chuen Khee & Othman, Jamal, 2010. "Household Demand for Solid Waste Disposal Options in Malaysia," MPRA Paper 23143, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. C. Otutubikey Izugbara & J. O. Umoh, 2004. "Indigenous Waste Management Practices among the Ngwa of Southeastern Nigeria: Some Lessons and Policy Implications," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 87-92, June.
    7. Beck, Tony & Nesmith, Cathy, 2001. "Building on Poor People's Capacities: The Case of Common Property Resources in India and West Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 119-133, January.
    8. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xuan Thi Dan Huynh & Tien Dung Khong & Adam Loch & Huynh Viet Khai, 2023. "Solid waste management program in developing countries: contingent valuation methodology versus choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12395-12417, November.
    2. Raheel Anjum, 2013. "Willingness to Pay for Solid Waste Management Services: A Case Study of Islamabad," CEECC Working Paper 2013:03, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    3. Rashmita Basu, 2013. "Willingness-to-pay to prevent Alzheimer’s disease: a contingent valuation approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 233-245, December.
    4. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan, 2000. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Reply," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 129-132, January.
    5. Mikhail Miklyaev & Glenn P. Jenkins & Precious P. Adeshina, 2022. "Ex-Post Evaluation of The Algerian SWRO Desalination PPP Program," Development Discussion Papers 2022-14, JDI Executive Programs.
    6. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    7. Muhammad Rahman & Sher Ali & Naveed Hayat, 2022. "Households Health Cost from Water Borne Diseases in District Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan," iRASD Journal of Economics, International Research Alliance for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 4(4), pages 633-646, December.
    8. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    10. Maria Veronica Dorgali & Alberto Longo & Caroline Vass & Gemma Shields & Roger Harrison & Riccardo Scarpa & Marco Boeri, 2022. "A General Public Study on Preferences and Welfare Impacts of Antimicrobial Resistance in the United Kingdom," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 65-76, January.
    11. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    12. Stephanie F. Stefanski & Jay P. Shimshack, 2016. "Valuing Marine Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico: Evidence from the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 211-232.
    13. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    14. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    15. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Coomes, Paul A. & Jepsen, Christopher & Koford, Brandon C. & Troske, Kenneth R., 2014. "Estimating the social value of higher education: willingness to pay for community and technical colleges," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 3-41, January.
    16. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    17. Riccardo Scarpa, 2000. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Comment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 122-128, January.
    18. BΘnΘ, C. & Russell, A.J.M., 2007. "Diagnostic study of the Volta Basin fisheries: Part 2 Livelihoods and poverty analysis, current trends and projections," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 38823, April.
    19. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo, 2003. "Economics of Wildlife Tourism," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48969, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    20. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1759-:d:216582. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.