IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea10/61653.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk Belief, Producer Demand, and Valuation of Improved Irrigations: Results from Field Experiments in Mt. Kilimanjaro

Author

Listed:
  • Muamba, Francis
  • Kraybill, David S.

Abstract

This paper systematically estimates the potential benefit of introducing improved irrigation schemes in Mt. Kilimanjaro to help rain dependent farmers cope with the risks of climate change. The study uses Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to elicit farmers’ Willingness to Pay (WTP) for eliminating the risks of crop loss by accessing improved irrigation schemes. Data for the analysis were gathered using a double bounded survey from over 200 randomly-sampled farmers in 15 villages. The study makes a contribution to the applied welfare literature and should also be useful for policymakers in Africa. The policy contribution consists of valuation of improved irrigation in the presence of climate change risks. The applied welfare contribution consists of empirical evidence about the impact of farmer’s risk aversion on welfare valuation. Pratt and Zeckhauser (1996) argue on conceptual grounds that in the absence of complete contingent claims market, individual WTP per unit of risk reduction will depend significantly on the level of risk and the magnitude of reduction that is offered. The present study captures individual farmer’s risk exposure by constructing an index for farmers’ expected rainfall. Since mean WTP is nonlinear in its parameters, mean WTP is computed based on the Krinsky and Robb (1986) method, which simulates the confidence interval and the achieved significance levels (ASL) for testing the null hypothesis that WTP≤0. The results show that farmers with lower expectations about future rainfall are willing to pay more for accessing the improved irrigation scheme. In addition, Mt. Kilimanjaro farmers are willing to pay up to 10% of their income to have access to improved irrigation canals. Assuming a 5% discount rate, the study found that farmers will reimburse the cost of building the irrigation scheme after 7 to 9 years.

Suggested Citation

  • Muamba, Francis & Kraybill, David S., 2010. "Risk Belief, Producer Demand, and Valuation of Improved Irrigations: Results from Field Experiments in Mt. Kilimanjaro," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61653, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61653
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.61653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/61653/files/AAEA%20Conference%20Poster.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.61653?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. Pratt, John W & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1996. "Willingness to Pay and the Distribution of Risk and Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 747-763, August.
    2. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Coggins, Jay S., 2008. "Environmental risk and welfare valuation under imperfect information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 150-169, May.
    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. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    2. John P. Small & Henry Ergas, 1999. "The Rental Cost of Sunk and Regulated Capital," Econometrics Working Papers 9908, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    3. Aaron Sojourner, "undated". "Partial identification of willingness-to-pay using shape restrictions with an application to the value of a statistical life," Working Papers 0110, Human Resources and Labor Studies, University of Minnesota (Twin Cities Campus).
    4. Friedrich Breyer & Stefan Felder, 2002. "The Dead-Anyway Effect Revis(it)ed," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 302, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    5. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Marc Fleurbaey, 2010. "Assessing Risky Social Situations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 649-680, August.
    7. Tolley, George S. & Fabian, Robert G., 1998. "Issues in improvement of the valuation of non-market goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 75-83, June.
    8. Han Bleichrodt & Christophe Courbage & Béatrice Rey, 2019. "The value of a statistical life under changes in ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    10. Antoine Bommier & Bertrand Villeneuve, 2012. "Risk Aversion and the Value of Risk to Life," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 79(1), pages 77-104, March.
    11. Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2021. "Fatality Risk Regulation," TSE Working Papers 21-1177, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    12. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    13. Kaïs Dachraoui & Georges Dionne & Louis Eeckhoudt & Philippe Godfroid, 2004. "Comparative Mixed Risk Aversion: Definition and Application to Self-Protection and Willingness to Pay," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 261-276, December.
    14. Smith, V. Kerry & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Van Houtven, George L., 2003. "VSL reconsidered: what do labor supply estimates reveal about risk preferences?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 147-153, August.
    15. Stephen C. Newbold, 2011. "Valuing Health Risk Changes Using a Life-Cycle Consumption Framework," NCEE Working Paper Series 201103, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Apr 2011.
    16. Treich, Nicolas, 2010. "The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 15-26, January.
    17. Zhihua Xu & Jingzhu Shan, 2018. "The effect of risk perception on willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by particulate matter 2.5: A case study of Beijing, China," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(8), pages 1319-1337, December.
    18. Alexander Petre & Jeffrey Wagner, 2013. "Green Consumption under Misperceived Prices: An Application to Active Transportation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(1), pages 187-204, July.
    19. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Marcela V. Parada‐Contzen, 2019. "The Value of a Statistical Life for Risk‐Averse and Risk‐Seeking Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2369-2390, November.

    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:aaea10:61653. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.