IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v65y2016i4d10.1007_s10640-015-9919-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work

Author

Listed:
  • J. M. Gibson

    () (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester)

  • D. Rigby

    (University of Manchester)

  • D. A. Polya

    (University of Manchester)

  • N. Russell

    (University of Manchester)

Abstract

Abstract A concern when conducting stated preference valuation studies in rural developing or very low income contexts is the use of monetary willingness to pay (WTP) estimates. In circumstances where cash incomes are extremely low, a significant proportion of the population are not engaged in waged labour and the exchange of goods or services is augmented through barter or work exchange, the role of money is likely to be different from that within an urban developed setting. As such, ability to pay using money may be impaired and downwardly biased when compared with other mediums of exchange. In recognition of this several studies have used hypothetical labour contributions as payment vehicles and a common finding is that households are more often willing to contribute labour than they are money. In this paper we present the results of a split sample DCE using money and labour contributions as payment vehicles for improved drinking water quality in Kandal Province, Cambodia. We find little differences between the payment vehicles in terms of attribute non-attendance, marginal utilities of attributes or derived welfare values. We argue that this provides support for the use of WTP in rural developing areas where there are functioning labour markets.

Suggested Citation

  • J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:65:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s10640-015-9919-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-015-9919-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-015-9919-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emmanuel Skoufias, 1994. "Using Shadow Wages to Estimate Labor Supply of Agricultural Households," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(2), pages 215-227.
    2. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Mike Burton & Dan Rigby, 2009. "Hurdle and Latent Class Approaches to Serial Non-Participation in Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 211-226, February.
    5. Young-Sook Eom & Douglas Larson, 2006. "Valuing housework time from willingness to spend time and money for environmental quality improvements," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 205-227, September.
    6. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    7. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    8. Le Trong Hung & John B. Loomis & Vu Tien Thinh, 2007. "Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 173-185.
    9. Dan Rigby & Francisco Alcon & Michael Burton, 2010. "Supply uncertainty and the economic value of irrigation water," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 37(1), pages 97-117, March.
    10. Dale Whittington, 2002. "Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 323-367, June.
    11. Frank J. Cesario, 1976. "Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(1), pages 32-41.
    12. Echessah, Protase N. & Swallow, Brent M. & Kamara, Damaris W. & Curry, John J., 1997. "Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: Application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 239-253, February.
    13. Shyamsundar, Priya & Kramer, Randall A., 1996. "Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-144, September.
    14. Asquith, Nigel M. & Vargas, Maria Teresa & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 675-684, May.
    15. Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1061-1076, December.
    16. Tilahun, Mesfin & Vranken, Liesbet & Muys, Bart & Deckers, Jozef A. & Gebregziabher, Kidanemariam & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Bauer, Hans & Mathijs, Erik, 2012. "Rural Households’ Demand for Frankincense Forest Conservation in Tigray: A Continent Valuation Analysis," Working Papers 146520, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    17. J. Taylor & Irma Adelman, 2003. "Agricultural Household Models: Genesis, Evolution, and Extensions," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 33-58, January.
    18. Rajesh K. Rai & Helen Scarborough, 2015. "Nonmarket valuation in developing countries: incorporating labour contributions in environmental benefits estimates," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(4), pages 479-498, October.
    19. Mylene Lagarde, 2013. "Investigating Attribute Non‐Attendance And Its Consequences In Choice Experiments With Latent Class Models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 554-567, May.
    20. Kamuanga, Mulumba & Swallow, Brent M. & Sigue, Hamade & Bauer, Burkhard, 2001. "Evaluating contingent and actual contributions to a local public good: Tsetse control in the Yale agro-pastoral zone, Burkina Faso," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 115-130, October.
    21. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    22. Swallow, B. M. & Woudyalew, M., 1994. "Evaluating willingness to contribute to a local public good: Application of contingent valuation to tsetse control in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 153-161, November.
    23. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    24. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2013. "Economic value of mitigation of plant invaders in a subsistence economy: incorporating labour as a mode of payment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 225-244, April.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Suziana Hassan & Søren Bøye Olsen & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2018. "Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Economies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 1053-1075, December.
    2. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Nguyen Minh Duc & Rehl, Antonia & Siepmann, Ute & Pham Van Dinh, 2017. "Labour as a utility measure reconsidered," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 03-2017, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    3. Andreas Pondorfer & Katrin Rehdanz, 2018. "Eliciting Preferences for Public Goods in Nonmonetized Communities: Accounting for Preference Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-86.
    4. Chaikumbung, Mayula & Doucouliagos, Hristos & Scarborough, Helen, 2019. "Institutions, Culture, and Wetland Values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 195-204.
    5. Chun-Lin Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang & Chun-Hung Lee & Supasit Sriarkarin, 2019. "Evaluating the Public’s Preferences toward Sustainable Planning under Climate and Land Use Change in Forest Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Kocsis, Tamás & Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna, 2018. "Gazdag szegények. Időráfordítási hajlandóság a környezeti javak értékelésében
      [The wealthy poor - "willingness to spend time" in evaluating environmental benefits]
      ," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1154-1171.
    8. Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Vondolia, Godwin K. & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Are non-monetary payment modes more uncertain for stated preference elicitation in developing countries?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 73-87.

    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:kap:enreec:v:65:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s10640-015-9919-8. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.