Environmental Hazards

ISSN: 1747-7891 (Print) 1878-0059 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tenh20

Environmental hazards and waste management

in Nsukka urban metropolis in Enugu State of
Nigeria: how much are people willing to pay?

Emmanuel O. Nwosu, Anthony Orji & Denis Yuni

To cite this article: Emmanuel O. Nwosu, Anthony Orji & Denis Yuni (2017): Environmental
hazards and waste management in Nsukka urban metropolis in Enugu State of Nigeria: how much
are people willing to pay?, Environmental Hazards, DOI: 10.1080/17477891.2017.1340868

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2017.1340868

Published online: 28 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tenh20

Download by: [197.210.227.210] Date: 30 June 2017, At: 13:43

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2017.1340868

Environmental hazards and waste management in Nsukka

urban metropolis in Enugu State of Nigeria: how much are
people willing to pay?
Emmanuel O. Nwosua, Anthony Orji a
and Denis Yunib
a
Department of Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria; bDepartment of Economics and
Development Studies, Federal University Ndufu-Alike Ikwo, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Solid waste management in Nsukka town in Enugu state of Nigeria Received 30 July 2016
has remained a major challenge despite the efforts of the state Accepted 1 June 2017
government through the Enugu State Waste Management Agency
KEYWORDS
(ESWAMA). The current method whereby households dump refuse Environmental hazard; waste
at designated locations by the road side to be cleared later has management; contingent
not yielded much improved sanitation of the town. In this study valuation; willingness to pay;
we propose an alternative waste management method that is double-bounded;
believed to be superior to the status quo if properly managed. dichotomous choice
This study applies Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to
estimate the households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for this new
method in order to ascertain its applicability in Nsukka urban.
Data were collected from a sample of 500 households stratified
according to major streets in the town. The results show that the
mean WTP using different specifications of the model varies from
N527.50 (about 2.68) to N530.90 (about 2.68) per month. The
policy implication is that if the waste management agency adopts
the proposed scenario and manages it well the average revenue
realizable per month would be about N13,750,516 (about
$69,800). The authorities can compare this with the cost of
providing the service and see if it is worth the effort.

1. Introduction
Solid waste management has over the past three decades been a subject of increasing
importance as it became one of the challenges towards achieving a safer environment,
especially in developing countries. Consequently, several discussions in the environmental
economics literature have been geared towards analysing issues related to solid waste
management and how it affects the socio-economic well-being of the rural and urban
populace (Alnaa, Aglobite, & Ahiakpos, 2011; Hagos, Mekonnen, & Gebreegziabher,
2012; Khattak & Amin, 2013; Khattak & Amin, 2013; Mbaye, 2008; Sizya, 2015). This devel-
opment is largely due to the fact that concerns about sustainable development and envir-
onmentally sound policies have been growing considerably across the globe in the last
three decades. For instance, in 1992, the United Nations Conference on the Environment

CONTACT Anthony Orji anthony.orji@unn.edu.ng Department of Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001,
Enugu State, Nigeria
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. O. NWOSU ET AL.

and Development (UNCED) recommended a set of measures for waste management,

while three of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that occupied the
global agenda between 2000 and 2015 have implications for sustainable environment.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which have now replaced the MDGs also
include a number of environmental targets.
Environmental issues have been identified to have a direct impact on the health status
of people. Thus, according to World Bank (2014), proper management of solid waste is
critical to the health and well-being of rural and urban residents. Studies such as Cointreau
(2005) and Afon (2007) have also shown that there is a relationship between waste man-
agement and the economic, environmental, and sociopolitical well-being of people.
However, the accelerated growth of urban population with unplanned urbanisation,
increasing economic activities, and lack of training in modern solid waste management
practices in developing countries complicate the efforts to improve solid waste services.
Also, changes in consumption patterns with alterations in the waste characteristics have
also resulted in a quantum jump in solid waste generation. As far back as 2003, it was
observed that inadequately collected and improperly managed solid wastes have contin-
ued to generate significant negative externalities that affect, for example, local traffic, aes-
thetics, flooding, disease, odours, air particulate levels, and waste quality (Ludwig, Hellweg,
& Stucki, 2003 and Cointreau, 2005).

2. Overview of waste management in Nsukka town

Although there has been increasing awareness on issues of environmental cleanliness in
Nigeria, starting in 1983 when the federal government introduced compulsory monthly
environmental sanitation, yet many towns and cities have remained untidy due to poor
waste management. Nsukka is the second largest urban area in Enugu State of Nigeria.
The methods and effectiveness of refuse disposal in Nsukka metropolis remain a matter
of serious concern. For example, Nwanta, Onunkwo, and Ezenduka (2010) reported that
a total of 194 kg of solid waste is generated daily in Nsukka metropolitan abattoir,
without any hygienic disposal and/or management system. Solid waste in Nsukka is dis-
posed of in several ways, including dumping, burying, burning, and landfilling. The
most common method of waste management in Nsukka urban is ‘communal storage’,
while in rural areas, dumping in open places and in open pits is prevalent. This shows
that the commonly used methods for waste management are environmentally unfriendly,
especially dumping, which is already the most widely practised in Nsukka urban
metropolis.
Hence the choice of Nsukka metropolis for this study was informed by inadequate
handling of waste management compared to other towns in Enugu State. Residents of
Nsukka do not have adequate access to publicly provided safe drinking water, and
access to quality publicly provided healthcare services is almost non-existent. Water
supply is mostly provided by private water tankers and not all households can afford
this service. Several households in Nsukka communities struggle to meet the basic necessi-
ties of life. What sustains the economic life of the town is the large number of civil servants
working mostly in the University of Nigeria and in many primary and secondary schools, as
well as few that work with commercial banks with branches in the town. One major
problem in Nsukka is constant erosion resulting from littering the environment, blockage
 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 3

of the drainage system, and dumping of refuse in unauthorised places. Poor management
of solid waste has, thus, cost the town a lot in terms of infrastructure damage. Newly con-
structed roads will have their drainages blocked or clogged in no more than six months
due to poor solid waste management. Illegal refuse dumps have penalties attached to
them ranging from a fine of two thousand (N2000) naira and above, or a prison sentence
as outlined in Law No 21 of 2010 Enugu State Waste management Authority (Amend-
ment). Unfortunately, the problem has persisted despite the bye-laws to the extent that
at one time, the local government authorities had to deploy casual workers or employ
the services of touts to stop the menace.
The prevalence of illegal dumping is due to the fact that most households have to go
over long distances from their residences before they could get where to dispose wastes.
In most cases, the owners of piece of lands used as drop-off sites have reclaimed such
lands, making it more and more difficult to manage solid waste in the town. Also, when
one is caught by the touts dumping refuse illegally, the culprit would be harassed and
a bail sum of not less than N1000 (about $5)1, which is catastrophic to many households,
was usually paid instantly. Consequently, many households usually resort to unhealthy
alternative of burning wastes in the neighbourhoods.
The Enugu State Waste Management Agency (ESWAMA) is the only agency that
manages waste not only in Nsukka, but also in all the metropolis of the State. The
current waste management service in Nsukka requires that households go to designated
refuse drop-off locations and dispose their wastes. Then ESWAMA would evacuate these
wastes to the waste management site, the location of which is mostly unknown to house-
holds. In most cases, it may take several days if not more than one week before these
refuse dumps are cleared at the drop-off locations. As a result, residents around the
areas where wastes are heaped have been protesting for the removal of such sites in
their neighbourhood. This has resulted in constant shifting of the locations farther and
farther away from households, and they have also become fewer. This makes it costly
for most households to go to new locations that are farther away to dispose solid
wastes, since transport cost may be as high as N300 a week as observed during focus
group interviews. Many other households, in the alternative, would carry the stinky
refuse in their cars to drop off on their way to work. Despite all these, ESWAMA charges
compulsory fees to the households for the services it renders by only evacuating the
wastes from the communal sites/containers.
In most cases, the ESWAMA uses casual workers to carry out this function. This arrange-
ment has not worked well because of many reasons. First, fewer workers and few drop-off
sites are available to carry out the task of waste evacuation in the whole of Nsukka town.
As a result, they are unable to dispose of wastes on time, thereby allowing them to over-
flow. This results in refuse pile-ups by the roadside that disrupts traffic and other activities
in the area. The households that reside close to the dump locations are more likely to be
exposed to risks of diseases. Second, because the operators of ESWAMA provide few
refuse dump locations, households are very reluctant to pay the fees charged for the
service. The fees may thus exceed the households’ valuation of the services rendered.
However, our focus group interview shows that households may offer to pay higher for
alternative methods that would ensure that the refuse containers are kept in the neigh-
bourhoods and are emptied regularly so that households would do no more than empty-
ing their properly tied wastes into them.
4 E. O. NWOSU ET AL.

Consequently, there are calls for the adoption of a new method that would ensure that
solid waste disposal is improved, and thus minimise the time spent by households in
search of drop-off sites or reduce the rate of illegal dumping. The new alternative that
is being proposed in this study will work as follows: waste containers will be provided
at the neighbourhood to be strictly used by not more than three compounds. But
where a compound has more than three residential buildings containing many flats, a
big container should be provided for that compound. These containers will be emptied
regularly by ESWAMA field workers into their waste disposal trucks so as to ensure that
they would not overflow and litter the neighbourhood.
This method if introduced would save households the trouble of going far distances to
dispose waste and, consequently, they would save the transport cost, which could be used
to pay the user fees. For this method to work properly, users of the service would be
required to tie up wastes properly in plastic bags before disposing into the containers
so that the whole process will be hygienic and easier to handle. It should be noted that
currently there are apartments or flats that are charged as high as N600 a month (or
not less than N7200 per annum) by the waste management authority for the removal
of wastes at the communal place. There are also other apartments or flats in different
locations that are charged lower than N200 a month. Thus, not only are these charges
hardly collected in most cases, but also it is hard to understand what informs the
current charges since it is based neither on the amount of waste generated, nor on the
knowledge of households’ willingness to pay (WTP).
Therefore, the broad objective of this study is to examine households’ WTP for an
alternative waste management system that would improve the situation without delay.
Ascertaining the WTP for an improved and better alternative may also help the operators
of the current method to reposition themselves to provide better services, knowing it
would be paid for. Succinctly put, therefore, pertinent research questions that we have
addressed in this research work include the following: how much, on average, are the
households willing to pay for an alternative waste management method that would
deliver a better service than what is currently provided in Nsukka metropolis? What
factors determine the households’ WTP for an improved waste management?

3. Literature review
There is vast literature on waste management and most studies in this area applied the
WTP methodology for a wide range of environmental and non-environmental goods
and services such as sanitation, water supply, recreation, health, and marine and coastal
area resources (Akhter & Yew, 2015; Alnaa et al., 2011; Ansong & Røskaft, 2014; Bhattarai,
2015; Borghi & Jan, 2008; Carson et al., 2003; Hagos et al., 2012; O’Shea, Gannon, & Ken-
nelly, 2008; Whittington, 2002). A wide range of studies have also been conducted specifi-
cally on WTP for solid waste management across different nationalities and localities
(Khattak & Amin, 2013; Padi, Addor, & Nunfam, 2015). Other studies that adopted WTP
to study solid waste management include Mbaye (2008) for Senegal; Afroz and Masud
(2011) for Malaysia; Alhassan and Mohammed (2013) for Ghana; and Assa (2013) for
Malawi. These studies in general conclude that the mean WTP can be a useful guide for
municipal officials in setting a more appropriate user fees that can finance improvements
in city solid waste management.
 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 5

Specifically, Niringiye and Douglason (2010) adopted a logit model to obtain the WTP of
the households for improved waste management in Kampala, Uganda. The result shows
that households’ WTP for improvement in solid waste management is above the
current rate. In another study, Bhattarai (2015) adopted a single-bounded dichotomous-
choice Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to estimate households’ WTP for improved
solid waste management in Banepa municipality, Nepal. The empirical results show that
the present garbage fee is far below the estimated mean WTP of households. Khattak
and Amin (2013) in another related study adopted a binomial logit model to investigate
the public WTP for the treatment of environmental hazards in the form of solid wastes
in Peshawar District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan. The results show that
many of the respondents were willing to pay more than the current fees for the safe
removal of solid wastes and other environmental hazards. Other studies that find
similar results include Padi et al. (2015) and Seth, Cobbina, Asare, and Duwiejuah (2014)
for Ghana, Subhan, Ghani, and Joarder (2014) for Malaysia, and Hagos, Makonnen, and
Gebreegziabher (2012) for Ethiopia.
Furthermore, other studies have investigated factors that determine households’ WTP
for waste management (Sizya (2015) and Massito (2009) for Tanzania; Khattak and Amin
(2013) for Peshawar District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province; Addai and Danso-
Abbeam (2014) and Amfo-Otu, Waife, Kwakwa, and Yeboah (2012) for Ghana; and
Ekere, Mugisha, and Drake (2010) and Banga, Lokina, and Mkenda (2011) for Uganda).Th-
ese studies conclude that variables such as age, income of respondents, environmental
knowledge, household income, education level of household head, and household size
significantly have a positive effect on household WTP. On the other hand, variables
such as household type and regulatory environment have a significant negative influence
on the WTP (Sizya, 2015).
In Nigeria, few studies such as Yusuf, Salimonu, and Ojo (2007) and Ezebilo and Anima-
saun (2011) have been conducted to estimate the WTP for improved solid waste manage-
ment in Western Nigeria. For example, Ezebilo and Animasaun (2011) analyse households’
WTP for solid waste management in a sample of 224 households in Ilorin, South West
Nigeria. Adopting both tobit and censored regression models, the study finds that the
respondents were willing to pay more than 1% of their household income per year. The
results also show that households’ WTP is influenced by level of education, income,
house type, activities of sanitary inspectors, and occupation. Other studies that find
similar results include Rahji and Oloruntoba (2009), Adepoju and Salimonu (2010), and
Obidi and Adeoti (2015). While these studies in Nigeria made important conclusions, it
is pertinent to note that they were limited in scope and methodology. Many of them
adopted either the tobit or the logit model and the sample sizes were quite small. Thus,
results from these studies are likely to be less efficient, making their policy conclusions
less robust to be replicated in other similar towns. The problem with the probit or tobit
estimation, however, is that each individual provides very few information with respect
to his/her WTP (López-Feldman, 2012). The double-bounded dichotomous-choice
approach adopted in this study, together with the large sample size, is able to improve
the efficiency of WTP estimations (Hanemann, Loomis, and Kanninen (1991). This is thus
an improvement over previous studies in Nigeria.
6 E. O. NWOSU ET AL.

4. Description of research area, data, and methodology

4.1. Description of research area and data
The study population for this research is households in the Nsukka Metropolis of Nsukka
Local Government Area (LGA) of Enugu State in Nigeria, which has a population of about
309,633. About 52% of the population is females and 48% is males based on the 2006
National Populations Census (National Bureau of Statistics [NBS], 2007). Nsukka LGA is
located in the northern part of Enugu State, in southeastern Nigeria. It consists of 15 com-
munities: Anuka, Okutu, Ibagwa-agu, Okpuje, Ibagwa-ani, Okpaligbo, Obukpa, Alor-uno,
Edem, Obimo, Lejja, Ede-oballa, Opi, Ehalumona, and Nsukka. Our population target is
actually Nsukka metropolis. As already pointed out, the choice of Nsukka for this study
was motivated by the urgent need to properly manage the menace of solid wastes in
the town. If the new waste management method works well in Nsukka, the approach
can be replicated in other countries, or more specifically, in other towns in the south-
east of Nigeria where solid waste management has been very problematic such as
Umuahia, Aba, and Onitsha.
The sampling design was a stratified two-stage design. The first stage involved delineat-
ing the study area into 10 enumeration areas (EAs) of approximately equal sizes (i.e. of size
200–250 households/businesses) based on the dwelling patterns of major areas. These
areas contain a mixture of households with different characteristics. Finally, in the
second stage of our design, about 71 households were systematically selected and their
occupants interviewed. By so doing, we were able to sample about 500 households.
The enumerators were instructed to interview only the heads of each household.
However, in cases where the household head was not available, the spouse or next
eldest person in the household was interviewed. We conducted a one-day training work-
shop for the enumerators, even though we used mostly experienced and professional enu-
merators for the survey. The variables cover socio-economic and demographic
characteristics of the households including gender and age of the head, marital status,
household size, income, and house ownership; environmental attributes such as level of
environmental awareness and amount of solid waste generated by the household; and
design variables such as bid prices, or the WTP in relation to the quality of the good
being valued (environmental improvement).

4.2. Design of the questionnaire

In order to elicit reliable responses, the questionnaire was well designed and well struc-
tured. The questionnaire had five sections. The first section covers demographic and
other individual as well as household characteristics such as name, gender, and position
of the respondent in the household. The second section includes questions on the percep-
tion and awareness of respondents concerning the various problems facing the house-
holds in Nsukka (including waste management problems) and how serious they
perceive the problems to be. The third section of the instrument contains questions on
waste management methods used by households. The questions cover such issues as
the frequency, the method, the location, and other environmental concerns about house-
holds’ current solid waste disposal system.
 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 7

The fourth section provides a description of the current scenario, existing problems,
and other challenges with the current waste management programme. It also included
a vivid description of the contingent choices/market about a new hypothetical solid
waste management programme which the government plans to initiate. In addition to
this, the households’ payment methods and choices were also included. Thus, the house-
holds were told that if they agree to support the improved project, they would be paying
directly to the service provider on a monthly basis just the way they pay for electricity, tel-
ephone lines, and other utilities. The households that decided to vote for the improved
project were then asked to reveal their WTP (using the dichotomous-choice method). If
the households gave a positive answer in Bid-1, they were asked if they would be
willing to pay a higher amount. If the answer to Bid-1 question was negative, then the
second bid was lowered. The fifth and last section of the questionnaire included infor-
mation on the socio-economic characteristics of the households.
Focus group discussion was organised and it contributed immensely in developing the
scenario. It was during the focus group discussions that the issue of bid amounts came up
and the participants were given a mini-questionnaire to fill on arrival before discussions
began. This helped to gather sufficient information on the start-up amount and the poss-
ible maximum value. Also, a pilot or pretest survey was conducted to test our instrument
and the scenario. A sample of size 50 was used to test the instrument and this sample
covered the stratification designated for the main survey. The response rate was very
high and helped in adjusting the scenario and modifying some of the questions in the
questionnaire that would have resulted in similar answers. Other biases such as start-up
bias were corrected. In general, more than 90% the respondents did not have difficulty
understanding the proposed scenario. There were the possible biases that gave concern
while conducting this CVM research. Particular to the double-bound-type questions is
the one usually referred to as start point bias that makes ‘the amount initially offered
by the enumerator influence the answer as a downward bias’. In order to eliminate this
type of bias, we checked whether there was any such bias or not. During the pretests,
few cases of start point bias were identified, and the final instrument was redesigned to
eliminate such biases.

4.3. Methodology
The basic methodology used in this study is the CVM to estimate households’ WTP for an
alternative solid waste disposal in Nsukka town. The general definition of WTP in the litera-
ture is the amount of money that makes the respondent indifferent between the existing
situations and the contingent valuation scenario being proposed (Alemayehu, 2014; Haab
& McConnell, 2002, among others).
CVM is based on the stated valuation of a consumer for any good or service which is not
marketable. CVM is widely used in surveys and research globally. It has been used on a
wide range in various studies conducted by the World Bank as well. It can also be
defined as a method which measures how an individual is compensated or charged for
a good or service which he or she sells or takes as the case may be (Whittington &
Pagiola, 2011). Kimenju, Morawetz, and De Groote (2005) has compared various
methods and found the CVM to be easy and fast in use (Khattak, Jamgraiz, & Ahmad, 2009).
8 E. O. NWOSU ET AL.

Following Khattak et al. (2009) and Alemayehu (2014), the main objectives in the WTP
survey are to calculate the mean WTP and estimate the parametric model to allow the
inclusion of respondents’ socio-economic factors in the WTP function. Thus, incorpor-
ation of individuals’ socio-economic variables into the CVM helps to gain information
on the validity and reliability of the CVM results and increase confidence in the practical
application of the results obtained from the CVM empirical analysis (Haab & McConnell,
2002). The demand assessment in most cases involves a yes or no response, on the one
hand, and the elicitation of specific monetary value for the yes responses, on the other
hand. In this study, we apply a double-bound approach or a dichotomous choice with
follow-up.

4.4. Model specifications

For the empirical specification, we follow the works of Verbic and Renata (2007) and
López-Feldman (2012) and model WTP using the double-bounded dichotomous-choice
contingent valuation model, which has been found to be more informative and asympto-
tically more efficient than the single-bounded method.
In this approach, a follow-up dichotomous-choice question is asked after the first
dichotomous-choice question. If the individual answers yes to the first question, then
he or she is asked about his or her WTP for a higher amount. If she/he answers no to
the first question, then a lower amount is offered. This implies that the second question
is endogenous in the sense that the amount asked depends on the answer obtained for
the first question (which is exogenous). With this method, we have two answers for
each individual, which provides us with more information (López-Feldman, 2012).
The empirical model is thus specified as:
WTPb = x ′ b + 1, (3.1)

where WTPb represents the vector of values of bid amounts and a dummy response
variable, x is a matrix of covariates or household socio-economic and demographic charac-
teristics, β is the vector of regression coefficients, and ɛ represents residuals. More specifi-
cally, the model is specified as:
WTPb = b0 + b1 female + b2 educlevel + b3 hhtotinc + b4 occu + b5 hhsize
(3.2)
+ b6 age + b7 marstat + 1,

where the right-hand side variables are defined in Table A1 in the appendix.

4.5. Econometric estimation

Following López-Feldman (2012), let bid1 and bid2 denote the first and second bid
amounts offered. The responses place each individual respondent in one of the following
categories:

1. If the respondent answers yes to the first question and no to the second, then bid2 >
bid1, which implies that bid1 ≤ WTP ≤ bid2.
2. If the respondent accepts the first and the second bid amounts, then bid2 ≤ WTP , 1.
 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 9

3. If the respondent answers no to the first question and yes to the second, then bid2 <
bid1, and this implies that bid2 ≤ WTP , bid1.
4. Finally, if the respondent rejects the first and the second bid amounts, the WTP lies in
the range 0 , WTP , bid2.

Hence, cases 1 and 3 have well-defined intervals for the WTP for each respondent
(household), while the intervals for cases 2 and 4 are identical to what is obtained using
the single-bounded dichotomous-choice model. As a result, the dichotomous-choice
model with follow-up provides more information, and this accounts for its preference
over the simpler format with one question.
In terms of econometric estimation, the maximum likelihood estimator was employed
in order to obtain directly the estimates of the coefficients that would directly help to cal-
culate the mean WTP from Equation (3.2). If the model is with or without covariates, the
approach to estimate the mean WTP at the mean of covariates as fully described by
López-Feldman (2012) was followed.

5. Results and discussions

Table 1 shows the summary statistics of the variables used in the estimation of the WTP
model. The mean value of the initial bid is N391.6, which ranges from a minimum value
of N100 to a maximum value of N1500, while the mean value of the second bid is
N537.3, ranging from a minimum value of N50 to a maximum value of N1500. The
higher mean value of the second bid suggests that most respondents accepted the first
bid as the second bid was higher. The lower minimum of N50 for the second bid compared
to N100 for the first is due to the rejection of the first. Again, the data collection was well
managed and CVM questions were well-elicited by the interviewers. Answer1 means the
response to the initial bid and answer2 means the response to the second bid. The
summary results show that about 85.2% of the respondents accepted the first bid,
while 32.6% of the respondents accepted the second bid. When it comes to the bids,
there were 100% responses as the 500 instruments returned have answers for the first
and second bids.

Table 1. Summary statistics of the variables used in WTP estimation.

Variable Obs Mean Std. dev. Min Max
amtbid1 500 391.6 235.9678 100 1500
amtbid2 500 537.3 274.69 50 1500
answer1 500 0.852 0.355456 0 1
answer2 500 0.326 0.469217 0 1
Female 500 0.488 0.500357 0 1
educlevel 500 4.056 1.183074 1 5
hhtotinc 500 110,191.4 246,230.7 5000 5000,000
hhtotexp 434 45,502.07 99,231.84 1500 1200,000
married2 500 0.79 0.407716 0 1
occupation 500 0.866 0.340994 0 1
hhsize 492 5.371951 2.784498 1 15
ownercaretaker 500 0.426 0.494989 0 1
freqwaste 500 0.53 0.499599 0 1
Note: hhtotinc* = mean value of household total income after inputting values for non-reported income.
10 E. O. NWOSU ET AL.

In the sample, about 48.8% of the household heads are female, showing that the
sample was relatively balanced and not biased towards male-headed households. Edu-
cation level of the household head (educleve) is coded 1 for no education, 2 for
primary education, 3 for junior secondary education, 4 for senior secondary, and 5 for ter-
tiary. The mean value of 4.07 suggests that majority of the household heads have senior
secondary education and above. The mean value of reported total household income from
all sources (after adjusting for non-reported income) is about N110,191.4, ranging from a
minimum of N5000 per month to a maximum of N5,000,000. On the other hand, the mean
value of household total monthly expenditure is N45502.07, ranging from a minimum of
N1500 to a maximum of N1, 200,000. Marital status of the head (married2) is coded as 0 for
those who are never married and 1 for those married. The mean value of about 0.79 shows
that 79% of the heads interviewed are married.
The occupational characteristics of the household head is captured by the variable
occupation, which is coded as 0 for the household heads who are not working and 1
for those who are working. The mean value of 0.866 shows that about 86.6% of the
heads are either self-employed, or employed in the private or public sector. The
average of the household size is 5.37 or approximately 5; this ranges from a one-person
household to a household with members as high as 15. Large household size is a charac-
teristic of developing countries and also accounts for the huge generation of household
solid wastes in these countries. The variable ownercaretaker takes the value 1 if the
respondent is the owner or caretaker of the household and 0 if other tenants. In the
sample, about 42.6% of the respondents are either landlords or caretakers. The frequency
of waste disposal (freqwaste) takes the value 1 if the household disposes wastes more fre-
quently, ranging from daily to once a week, and 0 if disposed less frequently, such as once
in two weeks and so on. In the sample, about 53% of the households dispose solid wastes
more frequently.
The correlation matrix of the variables is reported in Table 2. As expected, bid1 and bid2
are positively correlated. Also, education level of the respondent, household total monthly
income, household total monthly expenditure, and occupation are positively correlated
with the amount of the bids. The correlation of the bids with education and occupation
is higher than the correlation with income and expenditure. We alternated income and
expenditure in the estimation of mean WTP for reliability or sensitivity checks. There is
also a positive correlation between the bids and frequency of waste disposal as expected,
while household size and owner or caretaker are negatively correlated with the bid
amounts. Sometimes most landlords or caretakers in this part of the world do not want
to partake in utility bills and would always want other tenants to share such bills
among themselves.

5.1. Estimation of WTP and mean WTP

Table 3 shows the estimated results of determinants of mean WTP using a mean-only
model (i.e. without covariates) and two other models with covariates in which house-
hold income and household expenditure were alternated to check whether this
would have a significant effect on the estimated mean WTP. Table 4 shows the esti-
mated probit model using a single-bounded approach for comparison. The results in
general show that using household income or household expenditure in the model
Table 2. Correlation matrix of the variables used in model estimations.
amtbid1 amtbid2 answer1 answer2 female educlevel hhtotinc hhtotexp married2 occupation hhsize ownercaretaker freqwaste
amtbid1 1
amtbid2 0.7698 1
answer1 −0.3234 0.2513 1
answer2 0.0601 0.0723 0.0909 1
female −0.1082 −0.1296 −0.0327 −0.0605 1
educlevel 0.2496 0.2419 −0.0295 0.1317 −0.0302 1
hhtotinc 0.0772 0.0697 0.0129 0.1604 −0.0792 0.0743 1
hhtotexp 0.1133 0.0938 −0.0237 0.171 −0.0842 0.1116 0.7755 1
married2 −0.0345 −0.0193 0.0209 0.1164 0.0855 −0.1898 0.0539 0.099 1
occupation 0.1063 0.1175 −0.0204 0.0279 0.0122 0.0807 0.051 0.079 0.0043 1
hhsize −0.1133 −0.1164 0.0222 −0.0155 0.1035 −0.2088 0.0737 0.0871 0.3617 0.0752 1
ownercaretaker −0.2589 −0.2012 0.1429 0.0537 −0.0207 −0.2098 0.0981 0.1346 0.2584 −0.1399 0.458 1
−0.0139 −0.0004 −0.0349 −0.0921 −0.0944 −0.1604

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
freqwaste 0.176 0.1981 0.0893 0.0549 0.0816 0.0454 1

11
12 E. O. NWOSU ET AL.

Table 3. Double-bounded maximum likelihood estimate of determinants of average WTP for

household solid waste disposal (values inputted for non-reported income).
Variables Mean only Model_Income Model_Expenditure
Beta
female −75.10* −82.74**
(0.014) (0.010)
educlevel 63.64*** 57.68***
(0.000) (0.000)
hhtotinc 0.000342**
(0.010)
occupation 93.29* 85.11
(0.039) (0.069)
freqwaste 126.8*** 124.4***
(0.000) (0.000)
ownercaretaker −1.610 −21.65
(0.964) (0.572)
married2 120.3** 119.0**
(0.003) (0.006)
hhsize −10.83 −8.709
(0.085) (0.184)
hhtotexp 0.000480*
(0.017)
_cons 530.9*** 85.45 134.4
(0.000) (0.299) (0.116)
Sigma
_cons 332.7*** 300.9*** 297.1***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
N 500 492 429
Ic 5 5 5
Ll −748.5 −700.6 −621.8
chi2 78.65 67.79
P 9.14e−14 1.35e−11
Note: p-Values in parentheses.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.

estimation did not have a noticeable effect on the estimated mean WTP. Second, the
probit estimates using the single-bound approach tend to overestimate the mean
WTP due to insufficient information, leading to an endogeneity problem. Hence, we
chose to interpret the results and hence estimate the WTP using the double-bounded
estimates in Table 3 with the model in which income is used as one of the covariates,
that is, column two of Table 3.
The results show that if the household head is female, the mean WTP is significantly
lower. This means that female-headed households are willing to pay about N75.10
lower for waste disposal compared to male-headed ones. When missing values are
inputted for non-reported income as reported in Table 3, that did not alter the results.
Education level of the head has a significant positive effect on the average WTP. This
implies that the higher the level of education of the head, the higher the average WTP.
In terms of numbers, each additional level of education of the head increases the mean
WTP by about N63.64. As the head becomes more educated, environmental awareness
increases and this increases the motivation to pay more for environmental improvement
and protection. Also, household income expectedly has a positive and significant effect on
WTP; but the small size of the coefficient suggests that having a higher income does not
 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 13

Table 4. Single-bounded probit model estimate of determinants of average WTP for household solid
waste disposal (with and without covariates).
Variables Mean only Model_Income Model_Expenditure
answer1
amtbid1 −0.00180*** −0.00215*** −0.00222***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
hhtotinc −1.84e−08
(0.957)
female −0.204 −0.224
(0.180) (0.171)
educlevel 0.149* 0.0932
(0.023) (0.201)
occupation 0.335 0.219
(0.131) (0.375)
ownercaretaker 0.402* 0.437*
(0.019) (0.021)
freqwaste 0.540*** 0.604***
(0.001) (0.000)
hhtotexp −0.000000349
(0.647)
_cons 1.835*** 0.796* 1.150**
(0.000) (0.027) (0.005)
N 500 500 434
Ll −188.6 −177.2 −155.0
chi2 42.10 64.80 60.03
P 8.68e−11 1.65e−11 1.49e−10
Note: p-Values in parentheses.
*p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

lead to a huge difference in the mean WTP unless there is environmental awareness or
other factors that may motivate households to pay for environmental protection.
The results in Table 3 show that occupation level of the head has a significant posi-
tive impact on the mean WTP. This means that households with heads who are working
are willing to pay about N93.29 more than heads who are not working. This is expected
since working people earn income and are better able to pay most bills than those who
are not working. The other variables, namely, household size, and owner or caretaker,
are not statistically significant. Being a married head increases the WTP by N120.3 com-
pared to households with single heads. This suggests that when individuals are married,
they are more conscious of the dangers of poor waste management, since if not prop-
erly managed, it could result in huge household expenditure on health. This is because
children might easily get infected through exposure to decomposing wastes at home if
kept for long. In the constant only or mean-only model, the value of beta which corre-
sponds to N530.90 is the mean WTP. The calculated mean WTP and their confidence
intervals based on the estimated models are reported in Table 5.
Table 5 reports the mean WTP based on the three variants of the estimated model. As
stated earlier, the constant-only model (mean only) reports the average WTP of N530.90
(about $2.70), with confidence intervals ranging between N498.55 (about $2.530) and
N563.21 (about $2.85). The estimated mean WTP for the model with household income
as one of the covariates is N528.87 (about $2.68) with confidence bounds N498.87 (about
$2.532) and N558.75 (about $2.84); while in the model with household expenditure as
one of the covariates, the estimated mean WTP is N527.47 (about $2.68) with confidence
14 E. O. NWOSU ET AL.

Table 5. Estimates of the average WTP based on the five estimated models.
Estimates of WTP Coef. Std. Err. Z P>z [95% Conf. Interval]
Mean-only
Beta
cons = WTP 530.88 16.49494 32.18 0.0000 498.55 563.21
Sigma
Cons 332.73 14.71558 22.61 0.0000 303.89 361.57
Model _income
WTP 528.866 15.305 34.56 0.0000 498.87 558.86
Model _Expend
WTP 527.47 15.958 33.06 0.0000 496.20 558.75
WTP for the probit Model Estimates using Single-bounded
Estimates for Comparison
Meanonly
WTP 1022.07 97.4574 10.49 0.000 831.06 1213.09
Mode1_Income
WTP 953.43 79.8911 11.93 0.000 796.84 1110.01
Model_Expend
WTP 946.66 84.0643 11.26 0.000 781.8976 1111.42

intervals between N496.20 (about $2.52) and N558.75 (about $2.84). What these results
suggest is that the estimated mean WTP is not significantly different between the mean-
only model and the models with covariates so that the range of mean WTP lies between
N527 (about $2.68) and N563 (about $2.86) regardless of the model specification. The
total WTP based on these estimates is reported in Table 6. The mean WTP values estimated
from the probit model based on López-Feldman’s (2012) approach are reported in Table 5,
but they appear to be overestimated compared to that using the double-bounded method.
The population of Nsukka LGA was placed at 309,633 by the 2006 census figures and
about 130,000 of the population live in Nsukka town. With an average household size
of 5, the total number of households that live in Nsukka town including one-person house-
hold was 26,000. Estimates by the GeoNames geographical database put Nsukka LGA
population at 111,017 as of 2012, and this may imply a household population of not
less than 30,000 currently (excluding people who live on the university campus). We
chose to use a household population of 26,000 to calculate the total WTP for waste dispo-
sal so that we would not overestimate the outcome. The results are reported in Table 6.
Based on the estimated mean WTP, if the waste management authorities adopt the pro-
posed scenario and manage well, the average amount realisable per month will be
N13,750,516 (about $69,800), with a minimum of N12,970,620 (about $65,840.7) and a

Table 6. Total willingness to pay estimates based on the population of the town and average
household size.
WTP estimation Total number [95% Conf. Total WTP in Lower interval Lower interval
model of households Coef. interval] Naira in Naira in Naira
Mean WTP Lower Upper
Meanonly 26,000 530.88 498.55 563.21 13,802,880 12,962,300 14,643,460
Model _income 26,000 528.87 498.87 558.86 13,750,516 12,970,620 14,530,360
Model _Expend 26,000 527.47 496.2 558.75 13,714,220 12,901,200 14,527,500
WTP for the probit model estimates using single-bounded estimates for comparison
Meanonly 26,000 1022.07 831.06 1213.09 26,573,820 21,607,560 31,540,340
Mode1_Income 26,000 953.43 796.84 1110.01 24,789,180 20,717,840 28,860,260
Model_Expend 26,000 946.66 781.898 1111.42 24,613,160 20,329,338 28,896,920
 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 15

maximum of N14,530,360 ($73,758). If an average fee of N500 (about $2.54) is charged for
the new waste management method, the monthly revenue to the waste management
agency cannot be less than N13,000,000 (about $65,989.84). Hence, this should provide
a guide to ESWAMA on whether or not to adopt the new scenario by comparing the
cost of the service with the households’ valuation of the services. It should be noted
that ESWAMA also receives subventions (funded by tax payers’ money) from the Enugu
State Government for their operations. This means that the new approach if adopted
can be funded through the user fees and this would lead to improved sanitation of the
town.

6. Policy implications of the results and conclusion

The above findings have important policy implications. First, the results show that house-
holds are willing to pay for waste management alternatives that would lead to improve-
ments in environmental sanitation. This should serve as a policy guide to move away from
status quo if it is not yielding better results. This means that introduction of user fees with
better service will work well in Nigeria. Another important policy implication of the results
is that households’ socio-economic characteristics provide more information on their WTP.
Household heads who have good educational background, are employed in good jobs,
and have relatively high monthly income will always pay for waste disposal that is properly
managed not only in Nsukka town, but also in many towns and cities in Nigeria. In an
environment where education level is low, and many people are not employed resulting
in low income, pursuing waste management and environmental protection may be a
mirage. In such places, government intervention to manage solid wastes would be absol-
utely important.
Furthermore, the estimated average WTP would serve as a guide to the waste man-
agement authority whether this alternative whereby households would have containers
in the neighbourhood can be implemented by looking at the cost of providing the
service. Estimating the cost of providing the service is outside the scope of this
study, but the waste management authority could use this information in its benefit–
cost analysis if this alternative will be adopted. But during the focus group discussion,
the representative of ESWAMA pointed out that it costs about N10 million naira (about
$50,761.4) monthly to manage households’ solid wastes in the town. However, the
average WTP of N500 (about $2.54) does not necessarily mean that all households
will be charged the same, because some may pay well above and others well below,
while others may not pay anything. The proposed method if adopted would likely
increase the cost of waste disposal. However, our results show that households’ valua-
tion of clean environment as shown by their mean WTP may be able to pay for this new
scenario. It is also important to point out that the outcome of this study would have
immense benefits that would help alleviate the environmental harzards and urbanis-
ation problems of Nsukka town by helping to shape environmental policies, especially
solid waste management.

Note
1. This is based on the 2015 exchange rate when the data were collected.
16 E. O. NWOSU ET AL.

Acknowledgements
We appreciate the technical assistance and useful suggestions of Professors Rashid Hassan, David
Starrett, Marty Luckert, Tekie Alemu, Joe Cook, Margaret Chitiga, Edwin Muchapondwa, Wisdom
Akpalu, and other participants at the various CEEPA workshops.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
We acknowledge the funding for this project provided by the Centre for Environmental Economics
and Policy in Africa (CEEPA).

ORCID
Anthony Orji http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4032-7051

References
Addai, K. N., & Danso-Abbeam, G. (2014). Determinants of willingness to pay for improved solid waste
management in Dunkwa-on-offin. Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, 3(1),
1–9.
Adepoju, A. A., & Salimonu, K. K. (2010). Household willingness to pay for improved solid waste manage-
ment in Osun State, Nigeria. A paper presented at the 4th International Network on Appropriate
Technology held from 24th to 27th November, 2010, Accra Ghana.
Afon, A. O. (2007). Informal sector initiative in the primary sub-system of urban solid waste manage-
ment in Lagos, Nigeria. Habitat International, 31(2), 193–204. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.02.007
Afroz, R., & Masud, M. M. (2011). Using a contingent valuation approach for improved solid waste
management facility: Evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management, 31, 800–808.
Akhter, S., & Yew, T. S. (2015). Tourists’ willingness to pay for marine resource conservation at Pulau
Perhentian marine park. Malaysia Greener Journal of Economics and Accountancy, 4(2), 29–41.
Alemayehu, T. (2014). Smallholder farmer’s willingness to pay for improved irrigation water: A con-
tingent valuation study in Koga Irrigation Project, Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable
Development, 5(19), 5–15.
Alhassan, M., & Mohammed, J. (2013). Households’ demand for better solid waste disposal services:
Case study of four communities in the New Juaben municipality, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable
Development, 6(11), 16–25.
Alnaa, S. E., Aglobite, P. B., & Ahiakpos, F. (2011). Willingness to pay for efficient waste management:
The case of Bolgatanga municipality in Ghana. Oguaa Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 170–189.
Amfo-Otu, R., Waife, E. D., Kwakwa, P. A., & Yeboah, S. A. (2012). Willingness to pay for solid waste
collection in semi-rural Ghana: A logit estimation. Zenith International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research, 2(7), 40–49.
Ansong, M., & Røskaft, E. (2014). Local communities’ willingness to pay for sustainable forest manage-
ment in Ghana. Journal of Energy and Natural Resource Management, 1(2), 80–87.
Assa, M. (2013). Emerging solid waste market in Lilongwe urban, Malawi: Application of dichotomous
choice contingent valuation method. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 15(4), 56–65.
Banga, M. L., & Lokina, R. B., & Mkenda, A. F. (2011). Solid waste collection services in Kampala city,
Uganda. The Journal of Environment Development, 20(4), 428–448.
Bhattarai, K. (2015). Households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in Banepa
municipality, Nepal. Environment and Natural Resources Journal, 13(2), 14–25.
 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 17

Borghi, J., & Jan, S. (2008). Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: Application of
contingent valuation method. Health Policy, 87, 235–248.
Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C., Hanemann, M., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S., & Ruud, P. A. (2003). Contingent
valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental &
Resource Economics, 25, 257–286.
Cointreau, S. (2005). Solid waste management conceptual issues on cost recovery, financial incentives,
and intergovernmental transfers. Draft concept note. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Ekere, W., Mugisha, J., & Drake, L. (2010). Willingness to pay for sound waste management in urban and
semi-urban areas of the Lake Victoria crescent region Uganda. Second RUFORUM Biennial Meeting
20 – 24 September 2010, Entebbe, Uganda.
Ezebilo, E. E., & Animasaun, E. D. (2011). Economic valuation of private sector waste management
services. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4), 38–46.
Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources. The econometrics of
Non-market valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hagos, D., Makonnen, A., & Gebreegziabher, Z. (2012). Households’ willingness to pay for improved
urban waste management in Mekelle City, Ethiopia. Environment for Development (Discussion
Paper Series). Retrieved from http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/EfD-DP-12-06.pdf
Hagos, D., Mekonnen, A., & Gebreegziabher, Z. (2012). Households’ willingness to pay for improved
urban waste management in Mekelle City, Ethiopia. Environment for Development Discussion
Paper Series.
Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of doublebounded dichoto-
mous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 1255–1263.
Khattak, N. U. R., & Amin, S. (2013). Willingness to pay for the treatment of environmental Hazards: A
case study of Peshawar. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 3(7), 831–842.
Khattak, N. U. R., Jamgraiz, K., & Ahmad, I. (2009). An analysis of willingness to pay for better solid
waste management services in urban areas of district Peshawar. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture,
25(3), 1–14.
Kimenju, S. C., Morawetz, U. B., & De Groote, H. (2005). Comparing contingent valuation methods,
choice experiments and experimental auctions in soliciting consumer preference for maize in
Western Kenya: Preliminary results. Paper presented at the African Econometric Society 10th
Annual Conference on Econometric Modelling in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from https://
www.researchgate.net
López-Feldman, A. (2012). Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata (MPRA paper No. 41018).
Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41018/
Ludwig, C., Hellweg, S., & Stucki, S. (Eds.). (2003). Municipal solid waste management: Strategies and
technologies for sustainable solutions. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Massito, J. G. (2009). Willingness to pay for a garbage Collection Service at University of Dares Salaam
residential area. Unpublished dissertation submitted in (partial) Fulfillment of the Requirement for
the Degree of Masters of Arts (Economics) of The University of Dar es Salaam.
Mbaye, A. A. (2008). Collecting household waste in Dakar: Does it cost that much? An application of
contingent valuation. CS-BIGS, Journal, 2(1), 28–37.
National Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/
download/120
Niringiye, A., & Douglason, G. O. (2010). Determinants of willingness to pay for solid waste manage-
ment improvement in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2009),
492–502.
Nwanta, J. A., Onunkwo, J., & Ezenduka, E. (2010). Analysis of Nsukka metropolitan abattoir solid
waste and its bacterial contents in south eastern Nigeria: Public health implication. Archives of
Environmental & Occupational Health, 65(1), 21–26. doi:10.1080/19338240903390263
Obidi, B. A., & Adeoti, A. (2015). Preference for improved solid waste management attributes among
urban poor and non-poor households’ in Delta-state, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Agricultural
Extension, Economics & Sociology, 5(1), 46–56.
O’Shea, E., Gannon, B., & Kennelly, B. (2008). Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental
health care in Ireland. Health Policy, 88, 359–370.
18 E. O. NWOSU ET AL.

Padi, A., Addor, J. A., & Nunfam, V. F. (2015). An econometric model of factors influencing households’
willingness to pay for improved solid waste management service within the Sekondi – Takoradi
metropolis in the western region of Ghana. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development,
6(16), 15–29.
Rahji, M. A. Y., & Oloruntoba, E. O. (2009). Determinants of households’ willingness to pay for private
solid waste management in Ibadan, Nigeria.
Seth, K., Cobbina, S. J., Asare, W., & Duwiejuah, A. B. (2014). Household demand and willingness to pay
for solid waste management service in Tuobodom in the techiman-north district Ghana. American
Journal of Environmental Protection, 2(4), 74–78.
Sizya, R. R. (2015). Analysis of inter – household willingness to Pay for solid waste management in
Mwanza City, Tanzania. Journal of Resources Development and Management, 4, 57–67.
Subhan, M., Ghani, A. B. A., & Joarder, M. H. R. (2014). Urban community willingness to pay for
improved solid waste management in malaysian municipality: A choice model approach. Asian
Social Science, 10(18), 1–15.
Verbic M., & Renata, E. (2007). Economic valuation of environmental values of the landscape develop-
ment and protection area of Volcji Potok Institute for Economic Research Ljubljana Working Paper
No. 32, 2007 pp. 1–31.
Whittington, D. (2002). Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing
countries. Environmental & Resource Economics, 22, 323–367.
Whittington, D., & Pagiola, S. (2011). Using contingent valuation in the design of payments for environ-
mental services mechanisms: A review and assessment. Washington, DC: World BankWorld Bank.
World Bank. (2014). World development report. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/
feature/2017/06/01/changing-the-environmental-trajectory-to-build-sustainable-cities-in-africa
Yusuf, S. A., Salimonu, K. K., & Ojo, O. T. (2007). Determinants of willingness to pay for improved house
solid waste management in Oyo State, Nigeria. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, 2, 233–239.

Appendix
Table A1. Definition and measurement of the variables.
Variable definition Description
Average WTP Monthly average WTP in Naira of the respondent
Initial bid (amtbid1) The initial bids offered to the respondents’ DC question in Naira monthly N100, N200,
N300, N400, N500, and N1500
Follow-up bid (amtbid2) This is the second bid offered depending on the outcome of the first. In this study, it
ranges from N50 to N1500
Answer1 Response to the first bid (Yes = 1 and No = 0)
Answer2 Response to the second bid (Yes = 1 and No = 0)
Age (age) Age of the respondent in years
Gender (female) Gender of the respondent coded as 1 if the respondent is female and 0 otherwise
Education level (educlevel) Educational level of respondents represented as 1 for no education, 2 for primary, 3 for
junior secondary, 4 for senior secondary, and 5 for tertiary.
Household size (hhsize) Number of members of the household
Marital status (married2) Takes the value 1 if ever married and 0 otherwise
Income (hhtotinc) Monthly income of the head of the household in Naira
Total monthly household exp. Household monthly total expenditure
(hhtotexp)
Occupation Takes the value if the head is working and 0 otherwise
ownercaretaker Takes the value 1 if the respondent is the houseowner/caretaker and 0 otherwise
freqwaste Takes the value 1 if the household disposes wastes frequently and 0 if less frequently.
 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 19

Inputting Missing Income Data

Annual family income was not reported by 123 respondents in the final sample used in this study. This has the potential to
cause a non-response bias in the WTP estimation. To compensate for possible item non-response bias, income was imputed
for missing observations by regressing the logarithm of Income*1000 on other observed demographic characteristics of the
respondents. The results are given below, with p-values in parentheses:
log(hhtotinc + 1000) = 15.817688 − .16221976∗female + .18083962∗educlevel − .14560162∗marstat
(0.000) (0.040) (0.000) (0.037)
+ .17717025∗occu + .08708831∗hhsize + .17793459∗age
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000).

Monthly household income was predicted for respondents with missing income values as (θ*exp(log(hhtotinc*1000)))/
1000, where θ is the estimated coefficient of exp(log(hhtotinc*1000)) from the regression of income*1000 on exp(log
(hhtotinc*1000)) without the constant term.