IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cmpart/265682.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Influence of governance institutions on households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in the peri-urban settlements of Matsapha, Swaziland

Author

Listed:
  • Ndlovu, Nonduduzo

Abstract

This study uses the double-bounded willingness to pay (WTP) bid elicitation format to test whether the institution providing improved solid waste management (SWM) services in the Matsapha peri-urban area of Swaziland significantly influences households’ WTP. Matsapha was purposely selected on account of its well-documented human health and environmental impacts of poor SWM, arising from the lack of a proper SWM system. The WTP for improved SWM by households was thus elicited and compared when the service provider was an independent public agency (the Matsapha Town Council), a traditional community development agency (the Kwaluseni Inkhundla), and a private contractor. Purposive and simple random sampling methods were used to collect survey data from 180 households, using structured questionnaires and face-to-face interviews. Overall, households display a high level of knowledge about the risks associated with poorly managed household solid waste, and have attitudes and perceptions that are receptive to a policy that improves the current status of SWM. The men WTP (MWTP) for improved SWM was highest when the service provider was the Matsapha Town Council (E47.71, with upper bound (UB) E56.29 and lower bound (LB) E13.33), followed by the private contractor (E43.71, with UB E42.50 and LB E11.67), and finally, the Kwaluseni Inkhundla (E36.49, with UB E50.83 and LB E12.14). Additional analysis showed that the MWTP did not statistically differ when the SWM service was provided by the Matsapha Town Council or the private contractor (t = 1.52, p = 0.1331), which was unexpected, given that the latter is generally viewed as more efficient and cost effective. The MWTP was, however, significantly higher when the service provider was the Matsapha Town Council, in comparison with the Kwaluseni Inkhundla (t = 4.28, p = 0.0001). Finally, the MWTP was significantly higher when the service provider was the private contractor, in comparison with the Kwaluseni Inkhundla (t = 2.90, p = 0.0053). This allows us to conclude that the institution providing improved SWM services significantly influences households WTP for improved SWM services, and that households rank the Matsapha Town Council as the most-preferred service provider. The study further established that in areas where SWM services are currently provided at a fee, households have a WTP for improved services that is much higher than current charges. For example, in areas where private collectors currently provide SWM services, households pay a monthly charge of E30.00, while our analysis shows they have a MWTP of E43.71. The study additionally showed that in areas where no SWM services are currently provided, households would be willing to pay a positive monthly fee, if such services were to be provided. This allows us to conclude that the provision or improvement of SWM practices in the Matsapha peri-urban area of Swaziland, at a fee, would result in a Pareto improvement. Ordered Probit models, differentiated by SWM service provider as defined above, were used to determine the factors that influence households’ WTP for improved SWM services. The results, overall, show that households’ WTP significantly increases with the following variables: income, gender (e.g. WTP for females was significantly higher than for males), number of rental units in a compound, marital status (e.g. WTP for married people was significantly higher than for the singles) and number of tenants in a compound. On the other hand, WTP was found to significantly decrease with age, household size, attitude and perceptions of respondents. Following from the above, the study recommends that the Matsapha Town Council should consider improving the quality of SWM practices in areas where they are currently provided at a fee, and also consider providing such services in areas where they are not currently provided at a fee. Our analysis suggests that the Matsapha Town Council could levy a monthly fee that ranges between E13.33 and E56.29 per household. The actual value of the monthly fee should, however, be determined through a stakeholder engagement process. Keywords: solid waste management, improved services, willingness to pay, contingent valuation method, double-bounded dichotomous bid elicitation, peri-urban areas, Swaziland.

Suggested Citation

  • Ndlovu, Nonduduzo, 2016. "Influence of governance institutions on households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in the peri-urban settlements of Matsapha, Swaziland," Research Theses 265682, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:265682
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.265682
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/265682/files/Research%20Project_4_Final%201.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/265682/files/Research%20Project_4_Final%201.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.265682?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Hagos, Dagnew & Mekonnen, Alemu & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe, 2012. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Urban Waste Management in Mekelle City, Ethiopia," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-06-efd, Resources for the Future.
    3. Cornes,Richard & Sandler,Todd, 1996. "The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521477185.
    4. Jamal Othman, 2003. "Household Preferences for Solid Waste Management in Malaysia," EEPSEA Research Report rr2003054, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised May 2003.
    5. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    6. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    7. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    8. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    9. David Hoyos & Petr Mariel, 2010. "Contingent Valuation: Past, Present and Future," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(4), pages 329-343.
    10. Khattak, Naeem Ur Rehman & Khan, Jangraiz & Ahmad, Iftikhar, 2009. "An Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Better Solid Waste Management Services in Urban Areas of District Peshawar," MPRA Paper 51184, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Carson, R.T. & Mitchell, R.C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Kopp, R.J. & Presser, S. & Ruud, P.A., 1992. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," MPRA Paper 6984, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    13. Altaf, Mir Anjum & Deshazo, J. R., 1996. "Household demand for improved solid waste management: A case study of Gujranwala, Pakistan," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 857-868, May.
    14. 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.
    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Vasquez-Lavín, Felipe & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D. & Hernández, José Ignacio & Gelcich, Stefan & Carrasco, Moisés & Quiroga, Miguel, 2019. "Exploring dual discount rates for ecosystem services: Evidence from a marine protected area network," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 63-80.
    4. Lee, Kyung-Sook & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2021. "Would people pay a price premium for electricity from domestic wind power facilities? The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    5. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. James B. McDonald & Daniel B. Walton & Bryan Chia, 2020. "Distributional Assumptions and the Estimation of Contingent Valuation Models," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 56(2), pages 431-460, August.
    7. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    8. Mekonnen, Tigist, 2017. "Willingness to pay for agricultural risk insurance as a strategy to adapt climate change," MERIT Working Papers 2017-028, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    9. Dahal, Ram P. & Grala, Robert K. & Gordon, Jason S. & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Munn, Ian A., 2018. "Estimating the willingness to pay to preserve waterfront open spaces using contingent valuation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 614-626.
    10. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    11. Massimo Filippini & Adán L. Martínez-Cruz, 2016. "Impact of environmental and social attitudes, and family concerns on willingness to pay for improved air quality: a contingent valuation application in Mexico City," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Riera, Pere & Signorello, Giovanni & Thiene, Mara & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Navrud, Ståle & Kaval, Pamela & Rulleau, Benedicte & Mavsar, Robert & Madureira, Lívia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Elsasser, Pe, 2012. "Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 259-270.
    13. Roberto Ponce & Felipe Vásquez & Alejandra Stehr & Patrick Debels & Carlos Orihuela, 2011. "Estimating the Economic Value of Landscape Losses Due to Flooding by Hydropower Plants in the Chilean Patagonia," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(10), pages 2449-2466, August.
    14. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    15. Seck, Abdoulaye & Thiam, Djiby Racine, 2022. "Understanding consumer attitudes to and valuation of organic food in Sub-Saharan Africa: A double-bound contingent method applied in Dakar, Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(1), March.
    16. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    17. Kim, GwanSeon & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2012. "A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12, August.
    18. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    19. Acey, Charisma & Kisiangani, Joyce & Ronoh, Patrick & Delaire, Caroline & Makena, Evelyn & Norman, Guy & Levine, David & Khush, Ranjiv & Peletz, Rachel, 2019. "Cross-subsidies for improved sanitation in low income settlements: Assessing the willingness to pay of water utility customers in Kenyan cities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 160-177.
    20. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.

    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:ags:cmpart:265682. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agriculturaleconomics.net .

    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.