The rapid accumulation of municipal solid waste in many developing countries has been linked to urbanization, population growth and low budgetary allocation for urban solid waste management. This study aims at determining the households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management to reduce air pollution in Nairobi, Kenya. In order to undertake the study, the sample of 114 households around the Dandora dumpsite in Nairobi was randomly selected from Dandora, Babadogo, Kariobangi North and Korogocho residential areas that were purposively selected. The technique employed in the assessment is a stated preference approach called contingent valuation method. Double-bounded model was used to identify the factors that influence the households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management. The results from this study show that the willingness to pay for households is significantly related to monthly income, gender of the household head, household size and education level of the household head. In addition, the results also reveal that gender of household head is negatively correlated with willingness to pay while monthly income, size of the household and education level of the household head are positively correlated with willingness to pay for improved solid waste management. The results of contingent valuation further reveal that the mean willingness to pay for improved solid waste management per household in order to reduce air pollution is Kshs. 237.14 per month. Therefore, there is need for policy makers to involve the urban households in managing municipal solid waste for sustainable environmental protection in the developing countries
Air pollution, contingent valuation method, double-bounded model, hypothetical market, municipal solid waste, and willingness to pay.
 Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., Louviere, J., 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80:65-75.
 Bennett, J., Blamey, R., 2001. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
 Boxall, P., Adamowicz, W., Williams, M., Swait, J., Louviere, J., 1996. A Comparison of stated preference approaches to the measurement of environmental values. Ecological Economics, 18:243-253.
 Carson, R.T., W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, J.A. Krosnick, R.C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.A. Ruud, V., Keny S., Conaway, M., Martin, K. 1998. Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel’s No-Vote Recommendation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(2):335–38.
 Christie, M., Azevedo, C., 2002. Testing the consistency in benefit estimates across contingent valuation and choice experiments: a multiple policy option application. Paper presented at the 2nd World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Monterrey, California, June.
 Haab, T., McConnell, K. 2003. Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar.
 Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66:332–341.
 Hanley, N., Barbier, E.B., 2009. Pricing Nature: Cost-benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
 Hanley, N., Mourato, S., Wright, R., 2001. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15(3):1-25.
 Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Patterson, I., Wright, R., 2003. Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild geese conservation in Scotland using choice experiments. Animal Conservation 6: 123-129.
 Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D. and Crabtree, B., 1998. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49:1-15.
 Hensher, D.A. 1997. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. In: Oum, T.H., Dodgson, J.S., Hensher, D.A. (eds.) Transport economics: selected readings. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic in cooperation with the Korean Research Foundation for the 21st Century.
 Lockwood, M. and Carberry D., 1998. Stated preference surveys of remnant native vegetation conservation. Third Report of the Project Economics of Remnant Native Vegetation Conservation on Private Property, Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury.
 Maddala, G.S. 2000. Introduction to econometrics. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 Mitchell, R. and Carson, R., 1989. Using surveys to value public goods. The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
 Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G., and Nunes, P.A.L.D. 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity: a comparative study. Ecological Economics, 67:217-231.
 Ryan, M. 2004. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Economics, 13:291–296.
 Ndunda, E.N., Mungatana, E.D. 2013. Evaluating the welfare effects of improved wastewater treatment using a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management, 123:49-57.
 Ryan, M., Gerard, K. 2003. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care: current practice and future prospects. Applied Health Economics and Policy Analysis, 2:55–64.
 Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Amaya, M. 2008. Using Discrete Choice to Value Health and Health Care. Berlin: Springer.
 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. 2007. Research methods for business students. 4th ed. Essex: Pearson Education.
 Smith, R.D. 2003. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Economics, 12:609–628.
 Verbeek, M. 2008. A Guide to Modern Econometrics. 3rd ed. Sussex: Wiley.
Cite this paper
Ezekiel N. Ndunda. (2018) Estimating The Willingness To Pay For Improved Municipal Solidwaste Management In Nairobi, Kenya. International Journal of Environmental Science, 3, 8-16
Copyright © 2018 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0