Willingness to pay for improved residential waste management in a developing country

  • E. E. EzebiloEmail author
Original Paper


In most developing countries policies and frameworks that govern solid waste management strategies have often been directed at the waste management service providers and less attention is often given to the demand side of the problem. This paper reports a study regarding householders’ willingness to pay for improved residential solid waste management. The data for the study originated from a contingent valuation survey that was conducted in 236 households in Ilorin city in Kwara State, Nigeria. A binary logit model was used to account for some factors influencing the respondents’ willingness to pay. The results show that more than 80 % of the respondents were in support of the residential waste management. The respondents were willing to pay an average of 3,660 Nigerian Naira (US $24) each year. Income, education, dwelling type and whether the respondent is satisfied with private sector participation in provision of waste management service positively influenced the respondents’ willingness to pay. The price, gender, household size and activities of sanitary inspectors had negative influence. The findings from this study could contribute to the knowledge regarding the design of a more sustainable residential waste management strategy in Nigeria and other countries that have similar conditions.


Contingent valuation Dichotomous choice Logit model Urban waste management Sustainability 



I thank all Ilorin residents who spent their valuable time in attending the survey. Appreciation goes to Emmanuel Animasaun of Malmö University for helping in collecting the data. I thank anonymous persons who reviewed this paper for their useful comments. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.


  1. Aderamo AJ (2000) Spatial pattern of intra-urban trips in Ilorin. Geo-studies 1(1–2):47–57Google Scholar
  2. Alta AA, Deshaz OJ (1996) Households demand for improved solid waste management, a case study of Gujarwala, Pakistan. World Dev 24(5):857–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anaman KA, Jair RM (2000) Contingent valuation of solid waste collection services for rural households in Brunei Darussalam. Singap Econ Rev 45(2):223–240Google Scholar
  4. Awomuti AA (2008) An analysis of waste generation rate and pattern in Ilorin, Nigeria. Lapai Int J Manag Soc Sci 1(1):171–183Google Scholar
  5. Bishop RC, Champ PA, Mullarkey DJ (1995) Contingent valuation. In: Bromley DW (ed) The handbook of environmental economics. Blackwell Publishers, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Carson R (2004) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  7. Champ PA, Boyle K, Brown TC (eds) (2003) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Chuen-Khee P, Othman J (2010) Household demand for solid waste disposal options in Malaysia. Int J Hum Soc Sci 5(14):905–910Google Scholar
  9. Driesen D (2006) Economic instruments for sustainable development. In: Richardson BJ, Wood S (eds) Environmental law for sustainability. Hart Publishing, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Ezebilo EE (2010) Conservation of a leafy vegetable important for communities in the Nigerian rainforest. For Ecol Manage 259(8):1660–1665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ezebilo EE, Animasaun ED (2011) Households’ perceptions of private sector municipal solid waste management services: a binary choice analysis. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8(4):677–686Google Scholar
  12. Ezebilo EE, Mattsson L, Afolami CA (2010) Economic value of ecotourism to local communities in the Nigerian rainforest zone. J Sustain Dev 3(1):51–60Google Scholar
  13. Garrod G, Willis KG (1999) Economic valuation of the environment. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  14. Gellynck X, Verhelst P (2007) Assessing instruments for mixed household solid waste collection services in the Flemish region of Belgium. Resour Conserv Recycl 49(4):372–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gravelle H, Rees P (2004) Micro-economics. Pearson Education Limited, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanemann M (1989) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am J Agric Econ 71(4):1057–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanley N, Shogren JF, White B (2007) Environmental economics in theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Imandoust SB, Gadam SN (2007) Are people willing to pay for river water quality, contingent valuation. Int J Environ Sci Technol 4(3):401–408Google Scholar
  20. Jin J, Wang Z, Ran S (2006) Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecol Econ 57(3):430–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ku S-J, Yoo S-H, Kwak S-J (2009) Willingness to pay for improving the residential waste disposal system in Korea: a choice experiment study. Environ Manage 44(2):278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kwara State of Nigeria (1997) Kwara state diary. Government Press, IlorinGoogle Scholar
  23. Longe EO, Ukpebor EF (2009) Survey of household waste generation and composition in Ojo Local Government Area, Lagos State, Nigeria. Int J Geotech Environ 1(1):41–54Google Scholar
  24. Longe EO, Longe OO, Ukpebor EF (2009) People’s perception on household solid waste management in Ojo Local Government Area in Nigeria. Iran J Health Sci Eng 3(3):209–216Google Scholar
  25. Loomis JB (1993) Integrated public lands management: principles and applications to national forests, parks, wildlife refuges and BLM lands. Columbia University press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. McKerlie K, Knight N, Thorpe B (2006) Advancing extended producer responsibility in Canada. J Clean Prod 14(6–7):616–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the future, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  28. National Population Commission (2006) Final Results of National Census, Kwara State. National Population Commission, Abuja, NigeriaGoogle Scholar
  29. Niringiye A, Omortor DG (2010) Determinants of willingness to pay for solid waste management in Kampala city. Curr Res J Econ Theory 2(3):119–122Google Scholar
  30. Palatnik R, Ayalon O, Shechter M (2005) Household demand for waste recycling services. Environ Manag 35(2):121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rahji MAY, Oloruntoba EO (2009) Determinants of households’ willingness to pay for private solid waste management services in Ibadan, Nigeria. Waste Manag Res 27(12):961–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shih LH, Chou TY (2011) Customer concerns about uncertainty and willingness to pay in leasing solar power system. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8(3):523–532Google Scholar
  33. Slack RJ, Gronow JR, Voulvoulis N (2009) The management of household waste in the United Kingdom. J Environ Manag 90(1):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stafford SL (2002) The effect of punishment on firm compliance with hazardous waste regulations. J Environ Econ Manag 44(2):290–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tietenberg T, Lewis L (2010) Environmental economics and policy. Pearson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner T, Arnold P (2008) A new model for solid waste management: an analysis of the Nova Scotia municipal solid waste strategy. J Clean Prod 16(4):410–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Werner CM, Turner J, Shipman K, Twitchell FS, Dickson BR, Bruschke GV (1995) Commitment, behaviour and attitude change: an analysis of voluntary recycling. J Environ Psychol 15(3):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yusuf SA, Salimonu KK, Ojo OT (2007) Determinants of willingness to pay for improved household waste management in Oyo State, Nigeria. Res J Appl Sci 2(3):233–239Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Swedish Forest Research CentreSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations