IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Stated and actual altruistic willingness to pay for insecticide-treated nets in Nigeria: validity of open-ended and binary with follow-up questions

  • Obinna Onwujekwe
  • Benjamin Uzochukwu

    (Department of Community Medicine, University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, Nigeria)

Registered author(s):

    Objectives: To determine whether the binary with follow-up (BWFU) or open-ended (OPED) contingent valuation question format would yield better valid estimates of altruistic willingness to pay (WTP) and examine the feasibility of using intra-community altruistic contributions to procure insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) for the poor in Nigeria. Methods: Structured questionnaires were used to elicit stated altruistic WTP from a random sub-sample of respondents that had either the OPED or BWFU used to elicit WTP in Southeast Nigeria. One month after the survey the respondents were asked to redeem their WTP pledges. Construct validity was determined using econometric analyses, while phi correlation coefficient was used to determine criterion validity. Findings: More than 57% of the respondents were hypothetically willing to pay for altruism in both BWFU and OPED groups. Altruistic WTP was positively related to respondents' WTP for own nets (p<0.01) and nets for other household members (p<0.05) in both groups. A total of 27.0% and 33.1% of the respondents with positive hypothetical WTP in the BWFU and OPED actually contributed. Phi correlation coefficient was 0.23 (95%CI 0.20-0.29) in BWFU and 0.49 (95%CI 0.44-0.54) in OPED. The money realised was used to buy some ITNs, which were presented to poor people selected by community leaders. Conclusion: The OPED elicited better valid estimates of altruistic WTP than BWFU. The potential for more capable people to contribute for the poor in ITNs programmes actually exist and malaria control programmes should explore altruistic contributions as a means to increase net coverage. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    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://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.857
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 13 (2004)
    Issue (Month): 5 ()
    Pages: 477-492

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:5:p:477-492
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

    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. Onwujekwe, Obinna & Chima, Reginald & Shu, Elvis & Nwagbo, Douglas & Akpala, Cyril & Okonkwo, Paul, 2002. "Altruistic willingness to pay in community-based sales of insecticide-treated nets exists in Nigeria," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 519-527, February.
    2. Trudy Ann Cameron & John Quiggin, 1992. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data From a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire," UCLA Economics Working Papers 653, UCLA Department of Economics.
    3. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-77, June.
    4. Jones-Lee, M W & Hammerton, M & Philips, P R, 1985. "The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(377), pages 49-72, March.
    5. A Asgary & K G Willis, 1997. "Estimating the benefits of construction measures to mitigate earthquake risks in Iran," Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 24(4), pages 613-624, July.
    6. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    7. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    8. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
    9. Thomas H. Stevens & homas A. More & Ronald J. Glass, 1994. "Interpretation and Temporal Stability of CV Bids for Wildlife Existence: A Panel Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(3), pages 355-363.
    10. Duan, Naihua, et al, 1983. "A Comparison of Alternative Models for the Demand for Medical Care," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-26, April.
    11. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    12. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    13. Mary Jo Kealy & John F. Dovidio & Mark L. Rockel, 1988. "Accuracy in Valuation Is a Matter of Degree," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(2), pages 158-171.
    14. Cam Donaldson & Ruth Thomas & David Torgerson, 1997. "Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 79-84.
    15. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521663731 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    17. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    18. Frykblom, Peter, 1997. "Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 275-287, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:5:p:477-492. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

    or (Christopher F. Baum)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.