1134937

research-article2022
EHI0010.1177/11786302221134937Environmental Health InsightsGirma et al

Urban Households’ Willingness to Pay to Improve Environmental Health Insights

Volume 16: 1–10

Municipal Solid Waste Collection Services and © The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

Associated Factors: A Double-Bounded Contingent sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/11786302221134937
https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302221134937

Valuation Study in Harar City, Ethiopia

Haileyesus Girma1,2, Abraham Geremew1, Molla Alemayehu3,
Gutema Mulatu1, Mesfin Gebrehiwot4,5 and Bart Defloor2
1Department of Environmental Health Science, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia. 2Department

of Economics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 3Department of Economics, Haramaya

University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. 4Department of Environmental Health Science, Wollo University,
Dessie, Ethiopia. 5Ethiopian Environment and Forest Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ABSTRACT: Municipal solid waste collection (MSWC) service financing is a challenge for governments in developing countries, with little or no
contribution from the service users. In most Ethiopian cities, residents do not pay for MSWC. This study aims to estimate households’ willingness
to pay (WTP) for improved municipal solid waste collection service in Harar city. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 331 households
employing the contingent valuation method with a double-bounded dichotomous choice format. The hypothetical program works to collect solid
waste twice a week, house-to-house, and safely dispose of it to reduce environmental and health impacts. The Tobit regression model was used
to account for the determinants of households’ WTP. Findings showed that 89% (95% CI: 85.4, 92.5) of households were WTP for the improved
waste collection program, with an average yearly amount of US$12. The Tobit model shows that being married (β = 6.9, 95% CI: 1.2, 13.7), having
a monthly household income of >8000 ETB (β = 31.9, 95% CI: 22.1, 41.7), attending education about MSWM (β = 11.8, 95% CI: 5.6, 18.1), having
temporary storage at household level (β = 15.3, 95% CI: 9.5, 21.2), and recycling practices (β = 5.5, 95% CI: 1.2, 10.8) positively influenced the
WTP. Interventions like providing educational programs about waste handling and recycling and providing or encouraging households to have
temporary storage at the household level are needed to enhance users’ WTP. The policy implication of the finding is that community contribution
through service fees could be a strategy for sustainable financing.

Keywords: Solid waste collection, contingent valuation, willingness to pay, service fees, Tobit model

RECEIVED: June 24, 2022. ACCEPTED: October 6, 2022. Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential
conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
Type: Original Research article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Haileyesus Girma, Department of Environmental Health
publication of this article. Science, Haramaya University, P.O. Box 235, Harar, Ethiopia. Email: hailejesus22@gmail.
com

Introduction mostly on the ground for collection by truck), and a few door-
In Ethiopia, inappropriate handling and disposal of solid waste to-door collections were implemented. In addition, the amount
are common in major cities where waste is dumped in unau- of solid waste generated in the city is increasing, exerting great
thorized sites like roadsides, drainage systems, and open pressure on waste management systems within Harar’s limited
spaces.1,2 These practices seriously endanger the population’s land area. The commonly generated and disposed of waste in
health and the environment, as only 2% receive solid waste col- the residential areas were biodegradable wastes like Catha edu-
lection services.3 Because of the existing poor waste manage- lis (Khat) (ie, a plant mostly grown in the eastern part of Africa
ment system, such as a traditional mode of waste collection and where people chew the leaves for stimulant action) and non-
poorly planned and operated landfills, cities have neither ade- biodegradable wastes, such as plastic bottles and plastic bags.
quate nor acceptable levels of practice in solid waste collection Moreover, the landfill site, the only waste disposal site in the
and disposal.4 The main challenge in the waste management area, is poorly operated and is criticized due to location suita-
sector is that the municipality has the only responsibility bility, design, and local community acceptance.7 Furthermore,
(including financial and resources).5 the city lacks the implementation of waste reduction schemes.
In Harar city, this study’s focus, residents currently do not This implies that small proportions of the urban dwellers are
pay for municipal solid waste collection (MSWC) services. The served, and a large quantity of solid waste is left uncollected.8
Harari region municipality is the only budget source for Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) continues to
MSWC and disposal. As a result, solid waste management ser- be a major environmental and public health concern in urban
vices such as waste collection and disposal are ineffective and areas, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.9
inefficient. Only two-fifths of the municipal solid waste was Improper solid waste disposal practices have several implications
collected and disposed of properly from the daily waste gener- for the environment, public safety, and health.10 In developing
ated, 39 tons.6 The current MSWC scheme includes curbside nations, especially sub-Saharan Africa, waste generation is grad-
collection (people gather the waste in the designated place, ually increasing. Over two-thirds are disposed of in open dumps,

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Environmental Health Insights 

Table 1. Examples of commonly used elicitation formats for willingness to pay estimation.

Formats Descriptions Remarks

Open-ended “. . .What is the maximum amount you would pay per year, through a tax Likely to have a high zero
surcharge, to improve MSWM in Baher Dar city, Ethiopia. . .?” response

Bidding game “. . .Would you pay ‘A’ ETB every year, through a tax surcharge, to improve The estimate influenced by
MSWM in Baher Dar city, Ethiopia . . .?” starting-point used

Payment card “. . .Which of the amounts listed below best describe your WTP every year, The amount influences the
through a tax surcharge, to improve MSWM in Baher Dar city, Ethiopia. . .?” 0, A final estimate on the card
ETB, and B ETB, etc.

Single-bound “. . .Would you pay ‘B’ ETB every year, through a tax surcharge, to improve Higher estimate than other
dichotomous choice MSWM in Baher Dar city, Ethiopia. . .? (the price is varied across the sample)” formats

Double-bound Would you pay 15 ETB monthly through a tax surcharge to improve MSWM in Easier for respondents than
dichotomous choices Baher Dar city, Ethiopia? I have just described (the price is varied randomly other methods
across the sample)
If Yes: Would you pay 20 ETB?
If No: Would you pay 10 ETB?

Source: David et al43 and. Tassie and Endalew32

which block drains, resulting in stagnant water for vector breed- Willingness to pay for solid waste collection service improve-
ing and flooding during the rainy seasons.11 Studies report that ments can be accessed via non-market valuation methods. The
open dumping and open burning can cause all types of environ- most commonly used non-market valuation method is the
mental pollution, such as air, soil, and water (both surface and Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), which is validated for
groundwater).12,13 It also contributes to the global warming its application in developing countries.26 The CVM estimates
effect from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (methane, CO2, the value of a good/service not in the market by employing a
etc.) and other pollutants released into the atmosphere.14 If survey-based approach.27 Several elicitation formats were used
properly managed, waste management sectors can reduce global to estimate the value of environmental goods and services
greenhouse gas emissions from 10% to 15% and substantially (Table 1). CVM has been frequently used in waste management
increase to 20% if waste prevention is applied.15 sectors, among others, in food waste management,28 photovol-
An increase in the generation rate and types of solid waste taic waste recycling and management,29 private SWM,30 and
directly relates to lifestyle change, technological development, municipal SWM.31,32
and industrialization.13,16 The high population growth rate and Previous studies in developing countries employed a WTP
urbanization also became the main driving force that generated approach for assessing residents’ preference to improve SWM
a huge volume and diverse types of solid wastes (non-biode- services. For example, a study in Nepal examined residents’
gradable and e-wastes). This huge volume and various types of WTP for a regular solid waste collection service, where the
waste, together with limited resources and lack of financial existing waste collection service is irregular and is provided
support, create a challenge for the local governments to provide only in a few areas.33 The authors report that about three-fifths
adequate MSWM services.17,18 of the households were WTP, with an average amount of 0.72
It is essential to consider service users’ preferences to US$ per month.34 Boateng et al33also utilized the contingent
enhance the waste collection service since the waste collection valuation method to elicit households’ WTP in 4 metropolitan
practice links the service recipients (waste generators) and the cities in Ghana. They found that about half of the respondents’
service providers.19 Users’ positive attitudes and willingness to were WTP additional service charges (1.3 US$). The authors
pay for waste management can ensure the sustainability of ser- also state that having higher education and working in the pri-
vice provision.20 Ferrara and Missios21 reported that asking for vate sector positively affect WTP. Similarly, a study in Nigeria
service fees improves users’ waste management behavior, like used a dichotomous choice CVM to estimate residents’ WTP
recycling and waste reduction and segregation at the household for higher solid waste collection service fees than the current
level. Household waste segregation to collection frequency and one.35 The author report that older respondents had a lower
WTP for waste management services depends on users’ prefer- WTP than the younger ones. They state that this was probably
ence and participation.22 Thus, the formation and implementa- the younger respondents were likely to be more familiar to cost
tion of relevant waste management interventions and policies sharing, such as for education and health services rather than
should consider the local communities’ behavior and readiness free government services.
to contribute. The scientific community has executed several Moreover, a study in Ethiopia used a Tobit model to analyze
techniques to scrutinize users’ attitudes, preferences, and will- factors associated with WTP. They found that an individual
ingness to contribute to various environmental issues.23-25 was willing to pay about 1.07 US$ per month. The authors
Girma et al 3

Figure 1. Map showing the study area, Harar city, and the study woredas (coded in color).

revealed that richer households, satisfied by the service and service among Harar city residents, where partial and incon-
generating a higher amount of solid waste, had statistically sig- sistent waste collection service is currently implemented.
nificant positive effects on households’ WTP.36 Furthermore, a
study done in Malaysia evaluated the economic value of Materials and Methods
MSWM using the CVM. They found that satisfaction with Description of the study area
MSWM service affected the WTP amount, apart from socio-
The study was conducted in Harar city, Harari regional state,
economic factors such as educational level, house type, occupa-
eastern Ethiopia from May 25 to June 08, 2021. The Harari
tion, and household income.37 The most stated variables in
region is divided into 6 urban and 3 rural administrative
prior studies are age, gender, educational level, and income.
Woredas (third-level administrative division in Ethiopia).
However, the previous studies barely studied aspects like resi-
According to the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) projection,
dents’ experience of solid waste-related health hazards, attend-
the region has a total population of 270 031 in 2020.38 Harar
ing education about MSWM, and recycling practices.
city is located between 42°4′30″ to 42°9′30″ N latitude and
Scientific findings on service recipient preferences and
9°17′30″ to 9°20′10″ E longitude (Figure 1). Unlike most other
WTP to improve the solid waste collection service are limited
regions in Ethiopia, most of the population (56%) lives in
in Ethiopia. The coordination of concerned bodies (such as
urban areas.39
municipalities and NGOs) in identifying and considering the
local communities’ attitudes and preferences toward MSWM
Study design and study population
has received insufficient attention. Moreover, to the best level
of the authors’ knowledge, no evidence reported the proportion This study utilized a cross-sectional design to estimate
of urban residents’ contribution to SWCS in cities with no ser- respondents’ willingness to improve the solid waste manage-
vice fees in Ethiopia. Therefore, the main purpose of the cur- ment service. The study unit was household, as most service
rent study is to assess households’ willingness to pay and its fees, such as water supply and electricity service, are paid at the
determinants to improve municipal solid waste collection household level. The study population consisted of households
4 Environmental Health Insights 

in the selected kebeles (the smallest administrative division in hypothetical program intends to increase the waste collection
Ethiopia). frequency and improve the waste disposal system from the cur-
rent condition (status quo). And respondents were informed by
Sample size and sampling procedure stating, “. . .the program would work to collect solid waste two
times a week (House-to-house) and safely dispose it into a waste
The sample size was calculated using the single population disposal site outside the city to reduce health impacts related to poor
proportion equation, with the assumption of a 95% confidence MSWM.” The payment vehicle is a service fee for solid waste
level, a 5.5% margin of error, a 5% non-response rate, and a collection services. The hypothetical market assumes that each
sample proportion of 50% (since in the study area, the esti- response to hypothetically stated questions is comparable to
mated value residents’ willingness to contribute for MSWM the individual response to the actual market.27 The valuation
was unknown). The final sample size was 331 households, and exercise starts by asking respondents whether they are willing
the number of households surveyed in each kebele was deter- to pay or not by using a dichotomies question (Yes/No). Then,
mined by proportional allocation (Supplemental Figure 1). the double-bounded choice format was followed for those who
This study employed a multistage sampling technique. answered “Yes” by asking how much they were willing to pay
Harar city has one of the highest solid waste generation rates for the scenarios described in the hypothetical market.42
next to Jimma, Bahir Dar, and Addis Ababa (the uppermost).6 Respondents who answered “No” were then asked to explain
Simple random sampling was used to select 4 woredas from a why in a follow-up question.
total of 6, and from each woreda, 2 kebeles were selected simi- Before the data collection, the questionnaire was pretested
larly using a lottery method. Lastly, the study households were on 15 households in Hakim woreda, Harari region, to deter-
selected using the systematic sampling technique, with the first mine the initial bid value and check the study material’s appro-
household selected randomly. The sampling interval (K-value) priateness and ambiguities. In addition, the initial English
was determined for each study area by dividing each kebele’s version of the questionnaire was translated into local languages
total household (N′) by its sample size (n′) (K = N′/n′). (Amharic and Afaan Oromo) to correctly convey the intention
of the questions to both enumerators and respondents.
Data collection methods
Data were collected using a structured questionnaire through a Data analysis
face-to-face interview. Carson and Hanemann40 encourage Descriptive statistics and censored regression models were
face-to-face interviews due to their reliability and advantages analyzed using STATA 14.2. The Tobit regression was used to
over other approaches, such as online, mail, and telephone sur- estimate the maximum likelihood function and the mean
veys. The advantages are that respondents can ask for clarity, WTP.
keeping the interviewee focused on the valuation exercise. It Regarding variable selection, a bivariate analysis was ini-
also reduces the non-response rate and incompleteness of data. tially run for all variables. As a result, the variables (13 varia-
The questionnaire has 4 sections. The first section includes bles) with a P-value less than .25 (ie, as a rule of thumb) were
socioeconomic and demographic questions. The second part considered to build the regression model and were subjected to
includes questions about the respondents’ general knowledge multivariable censored regression. Then, the variable occupa-
and attitudes about solid waste management. The third part tion of the household head was dropped from the model due to
contains questions related to MSWM practice and access to the detection of sample size insufficiency. A multicollinearity
services. This includes the practice of segregation, recycling, test was also conducted using a pairwise correlation test, and all
and disposal. The final part includes the valuation exercise. A the variables included in the model were not correlated. The
contingent valuation method (CVM) using a double-bounded final model was run by incorporating 12 independent variables:
dichotomous choice format was used to elicit respondents’ gender, marital status, family size, educational level, house
willingness to pay under a hypothetical scenario of improving ownership, monthly household income, attending education
the solid waste management system, particularly the collection about MSWM, access to collection service, having temporary
service. SW storage at the household level, experiencing MSWM-
The CVM typically consists of a series of steps. First, the related health hazard, sell or exchange recyclable materials, and
current state of waste management was described. Second, a service satisfaction.
scenario for a hypothetical market was formulated. The sce-
nario includes describing the baseline (or status quo) condition
Econometric model
(s), as well as the proposed change (s), in a simple, meaningful,
and understandable way.41 In this study, we formulated a hypo- This study applied a double-bounded dichotomous choice for-
thetical scenario called “Harar City solid waste management mat, as it efficiently elicits more information about respond-
improvement program” in the future that could be implemented ents’ WTP.43,44 In a double-bounded dichotomous question,
by Harar city municipality or other concerned bodies. The the individual was presented with a first bid and asked whether
Girma et al 5

Table 2. Double-bounded dichotomous choice format to elicit respondents’ willingness to pay for solid waste management.

Bid prices Response Description Outcomes

Initial bid price 35 ETB* Yes—No “Yes” for the initial bid but “No” to the higher bid price proposed. 35 ⩽ WTP < 50

Higher bid price 50 ETB Yes—Yes “Yes” for both the initial and higher bid prices. 35 ⩽ WTP ⩾ 50

Lower bid price 20 ETB No—Yes “No” for the initial price but “Yes” for the lower bid price. 35 > WTP ⩾ 20

— No—No “No” for both initial and lower bid prices. 35 > WTP < 20

*One US$ = 43.5 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) on June 19, 2021 (https://www.combanketh.et/en/exchange-rate/).

they would pay this price for the new MSWM program when Data
considering their maximum subjective value. If the answer was Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics
yes, then a second higher bid was presented. If the answer was
no, then a lower second bid was presented. According to A total of 301 households completed the questionnaire. One
Entele45 and Wegedie et al,46 this method produces 4 possible hundred sixty-one of the respondents were females with a
outcomes (Table 2): mean age of 39.8 years (SD ± 9.9). More than half of the
respondents were married, and the average family size of the
Tobit model. The Tobit model was used to evaluate factors households was 3.7 (SD ± 1.7). Nearly half attended college
influencing the maximum amount of money households are diplomas, and about half of the study households were privately
willing to pay as used by other similar studies.36,47 The Tobit owned. The mean annual household income was about 82 000
model is an alternative to other linear regression models like ETB (~1885 US$) (Table 3).
Ordinary Least Square (OLS) when the dependent variable is
not fully observed, that is, if there are zero values for a substan- Solid waste management practice and access to
tial part of the sample, which is the case in this study.48,49 This service
is because the OLS would give inefficient and inconsistent
estimates. Only about one-third of the sample respondents had a tempo-
The data have both left- and right-censored observations. rary solid waste storage bin in their houses. In contrast, more
The left-censored observation is from below 0 (ie, at Yi ⩽ 0), than half of them has designated place for solid waste han-
households unwilling to pay any amount or are against the pro- dling at the household level. About three-fifths of the house-
posed improvement program, and their maximum WTP holds received a solid waste collection service (ie, once per
amount was reported as 0. In addition, since the proposed week) from the municipality. Most participants experienced
higher bid price was 50 ETB, we included the right-censored health hazards such as vector breeding and odor nuisance.
observation (ie, at Yi ⩾ 50) to consider respondents who might Regarding MSWM service satisfaction, nearly half of the
have a higher contribution (ie, Yes—Yes). Therefore, the Tobit households did not feel satisfied with the current service in the
model can be stated as: city (Supplemental Table 1).

Yi = X i β + ε i i∼ (
N 0, δ 2 ) Knowledge and attitude about MSWM
Where Yi is the dependent variable, that is, the maximum Study participants were asked knowledge and attitude ques-
amount of money the respondents are willing to pay; Xi is a set tions. Of the total respondents, only 42.2% know the type of
of explanatory variables, and εi is assumed to be normally dis- MSWM in Harar city, of which 70.9% said: “the waste is col-
tributed and independent of Xi with zero mean and constant lected house-to-house and disposed of at landfill/open field.”
variance (δ2), that is, N (0, δ2). The coefficient to be estimated On the other hand, most participants (90%) know that
is denoted by β. improper handling and disposal of solid waste could cause
Yi = Yi* if Yi* > 0 health problems. For the knowledge question about problems
Yi =  related to poor MSWM, respondents mentioned that odor
 Yi = 0 otherwise nuisance and vector breeding (65.4%) are major problems,
Where Yi* is the unobserved latent variable or the threshold environmental pollution like soil and water pollution, and
observed when Yi or the amount of money households are will- poor esthetics (15.6%), and the remaining responded “do not
ing to pay is positive. The observed Yi counterpart of Yi* can be know.” Regarding MSWM education, only one-fourth of the
expressed as Yi = 1 if Yi* > 0 for willingness to pay for improved participants were at least educated once about MSWM,
SWCS, and Yi = 0 if Yi* ⩽ 0 for not willing to pay for improved including proper waste handling, segregation, reuse/recycling,
SWCS, and Yi is a latent (unobservable) variable for WTP. and disposal.
6 Environmental Health Insights 

Table 3. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the study Table 4. Household responses to the hypothetical improved solid
participants (n = 301). waste management program.

Variable Category Frequency Response Bid price Frequency (%)

(%)
Willing to pay Yes—Yes 50 ETB* 107 (35.6)
Gender Male 140 (46.5) (n = 268)
Yes—No 35 ETB 100 (33.2)
Female 161 (53.5)
No—Yes 20 ETB 61 (20.2)
Age <30 71 (23.6)
No—No 0
30-39 84 (27.9)
Not willing to — 33 (11.0)
40-49 78 (25.9) pay (n = 33)

68 (22.6) *One US$ = 43.5 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) on June 19, 2021 (https://www.
⩾50 combanketh.et/en/exchange-rate/).
Current marital Never married 45 (15.0)
status
Married 178 (59.1) Results
Divorced 44 (14.6) Willingness to pay to improve solid waste collection
service
Widowed 34 (11.3)
Of the total respondents, 89% (95% CI: 85.4, 92.5) were will-
Family size 1-4 210 (69.8)
ing to pay for the improved municipal solid waste management
⩾5 91 (30.2) program. The findings of the Tobit regression (ie, only house-
holds that are WTP, n = 268) showed that the households’
Educational status No formal education 17 (5.7)
mean monthly willingness to pay is about 41.8 ETB (~1 US$),
Attending primary and/or 128 (42.5) ranging between 37.9 and 45.7 ETB with a 95% confidence
secondary school
interval. Furthermore, based on the double-bounded dichoto-
College diploma and above 156 (51.8) mous choice format, about one-third of the households
Occupation Government employee 89 (29.6) responded “Yes” for both the initial bid and the follow-up
higher bid price, whereas no household refused to accept the
Private employee 71 (23.6)
stated bid prices (Table 4).
Housewife 52 (17.3) On the other hand, about 11% of the households were
unwilling to pay for the solid waste management improvement
Merchant 76 (25.2)
program. Therefore, a follow-up question was asked to the
Others* 13 (4.3) respondents to state their reason for being against the program,
House ownership Private housing 151 (50.2) and most of them stated they could not pay because of budget
constraints (Figure 2).
Rented housing 125 (41.5)

Subsidized/Kebele house 25 (8.3)

Determinants of willingness to pay
Aggregated <50 000 ETB** 89 (29.6)
household income The Tobit regression model was used to identify the factors
50 000-100 000 ETB 150 (49.8) influencing WTP. The model’s findings show that 5 out of 12
62 (20.6)
variables significantly determined households’ WTP. The vari-
>100 000 ETB
ables marital status, monthly household income, education
*Others = farmer and unemployed. about MSWM, having temporary SW storage at the house-
**One US$ = 43.5 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) on June 19, 2021 (https://www.
combanketh.et/en/exchange-rate/). hold level, and selling or exchanging recyclable material were
significantly associated with households’ WTP toward
improved SW collection service. For instance, respondents who
The study applied 5-point Likert scale questions to assess are married had 6.9 ETB (95% CI: 1.2, 13.7) higher WTP
the attitude of respondents toward MSWM. The majority of (P < .05) than other marital status categories (single, divorced,
the respondents agree on the main MSWM components, such and widowed). Another statistically significant variable is
as solid waste segregation (70.1%), waste reduction (56.1%), monthly household income. The marginal effect shows that
and recycling at the household level (47.1%). However, a household heads with a monthly income of 4000 to 8000 ETB
greater number of them (44.5%) disagreed with the question and greater than 8000 ETB were WTP 12.1 ETB (95% CI:
they were asked about whether they believe Harar city has an 5.4, 16.2) and 31.9 ETB (95% CI: 22.1, 41.7), respectively
effective MSWM system. more than those with lower monthly income (<4000 ETB).
Girma et al 7

Cannot pay because of budget 45.5%

constraint

Resons for not WTP Do not believe the waste management 27.2%
program would bring the change

21.2%
It is the government's responsibility

It is the responsibility of those who 6.1%

pollute the environment to pay
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 2. Participants’ reasons for being against the waste management program (n = 33).

Household heads who attended an education about MSWM association with WTP at a 5% probability level. Married
were also WTP (β = 11.8 ETB, 95% CI: 5.6, 18.1) more than household heads had 6.9 ETB higher WTP than those with
those who did not attend. Furthermore, households with tem- single, widowed, or divorced marital status. The findings of this
porary solid waste storage and those who practice waste recy- study corroborate with previous studies, for example, in
cling through selling or exchanging material influence WTP Uganda57 and Ghana.33 This might be because married
positively at 0.05 significant levels, respectively. A positive respondents are likely to have a high waste generation rate due
effect implies that higher values of the variables increase the to larger family sizes; thus, they face a higher risk of improper
probability of WTP (Table 5). waste management than those not married.
The household’s monthly income was found to have a sta-
Discussion tistically significant positive effect on WTP (P < .001).
In the study area, there is no specific municipal solid waste col- Households with a monthly income category of 4000 to 8000
lection fee imposed on the residents. Only about three-fifths of ETB and greater than 8000 ETB have 12 and 31.9 ETB more
the households received MSWC service weekly from the contributions, respectively, than those with less than 4000
municipality. The study revealed that 89% of households were ETB. The result was checked for possible economic influence
willing to pay for the improved MSWC service. A household’s on WTP. As a result, about two-thirds of the households that
average amount of money willing to pay was 41.8 ETB per refused to contribute were in the lower-income category
month (~1 US$), ranging between 37.9 and 45.7 ETB, with a (<4000 ETB). Thus, when the household income increases,
95% confidence interval. The willingness to contribute shows respondents are more likely to pay for improved solid waste
the households are interested in improving the municipal solid management (increased purchasing power). This finding was
waste collection service, even if there is no existing fee. comparable with other studies in Nigeria,53 Nepal,34 Sri
The current finding of 89% of households’ WTP for Lanka,58 Ethiopia,51 and Vietnam.59 This proves that the high-
improved MSWC service is comparable with the studies con- income respondents were willing to pay more for environmen-
ducted in other parts of Ethiopia. For instance, studies con- tal improvements than low-income respondents, who tend to
ducted in Batu town, 89.5%50; Bahir Dar city, 86.3%51; and dispose of solid waste in open spaces.59,60
Debre Berhan town, 93.2%.52 However, the result showed Furthermore, attending education about MSWM has a sta-
deviation from other studies, such as higher than studies done tistically significant (P < .001) positive effect on households’
in Nepal 61%34 and Nigeria 64.4%.53 The plausible reason for willingness to pay. The possible explanation for this might be
the deviation might be the differences in study areas, settings, that as a person becomes trained or educated about proper
socioeconomic, and demographic conditions. On the other waste management, such as waste segregation and recycling, it
hand, the monthly household willingness to pay amount can be could bring positive perceptions and the ability to understand
compared with other recent studies on solid waste collection the consequences of improper solid waste management. In
services even though there is an expected difference in the soci- addition, education increases people’s access to knowledge
oeconomic conditions, study region, and period. For instance, about the future benefits of improved waste management ser-
this study was comparable with a study done in Hawassa City, vices. Therefore, the government may launch promotional and
Ethiopia (0.62 US$)54 and Rwanda (1.5 US$).55 However, the educational activities to disseminate knowledge on the MSWM
WTP is lower than a study done in Malaysia (2.87 US$).56 to implement the household MSWC service successfully.
Based on the model estimation, the marital status of the The households with temporary solid waste storage at the
respondents (being married) has a statistically significant household level were more likely to pay for waste collection. A
8 Environmental Health Insights 

Table 5. Tobit regression showing factors associated with respondents’ willingness to pay for solid waste collection service (n = 301).

Variable Crude Adjusted

β (95% CI) P-value β (SE) 95% CI

Gender (Reference = male)

Female −12.1 (−18.8, −5.3) .01 −1.87 (2.6) (−6.9, 3.3)

Marital status (Ref. = otherwisea)

Married 24.3 (17.8, 30.1) .001 6.9 (3.4)** (1.2, 13.7)

Family size (continuous)

5.3 (2.9, 7.8) .03 −0.05 (1.3) (−2.5, 2.4)

Educational level (Ref. = no formal education)

Attending primary and/or secondary school 16.7 (3.4, 31.2) .03 8.28 (5.9) (−3.4,19.9)

College diploma and above 30.3 (15.6, 45.3) .01 9.6 (6.1) (−2.3, 21.5)

House ownership (Ref. = rented/Subsidized housing)

Private housing 17.9 (11.3, 24.6) .02 1.5 (3.1) (−4.5, 7.5)

Household income (monthly) (Ref. = <4000 ETBb)

4000-8000 ETB 21.9 (15.2, 28.6) .001 12 (2.4)*** (5.4, 16.2)

>8000 ETB 46.7 (37.2, 56.1) .001 31.9 (5.0)*** (22.1, 41.7)

Attended education about MSWM (Ref. = no)

Yes 29.2 (20.6, 37.8) .001 11.8 (3.2)*** (5.6, 18.1)

Get SW collection service (Ref. = no)

Yes 19.2 (12.5, 25.9) .01 −5.9 (3.5) (−12.8, 0.9)

Having temporary SW storage at the household level (Ref. = no)

Yes 23.8 (17.2, 30.3) .001 15.3 (3.0)** (9.5, 21.2)

Experience health hazards related to improper SW disposal (Ref. = no)

Yes 17.9 (10.4, 25.5) .001 4.43 (2.9) (−1.3, 10.2)

Sell or exchange recyclable material (Ref. = no)

Yes 16.4 (9.5, 23.3) .01 5.53 (2.7)** (1.2, 10.8)

Service satisfaction (Ref. = not satisfied

Satisfied 19.3 (12.7, 25.8) .04 1.42 (3.2) (−4.9, 7.7)

aOtherwise = never married, widowed, and divorced.

bOne US$ = 43.5 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) on June 19, 2021 (https://www.combanketh.et/en/exchange-rate/).
Significance level at **P < .05, ***P < .001.

possible explanation may be, first, the idea of having a place to Therefore, it may be that the practice of waste reduction
gather the waste until disposal is possibly raised because of the through recycling used materials possibly come from one’s per-
awareness of the waste management system. Second, as wastes ception of proper waste management, which can influence the
from residential areas decompose and produce odor, nuisance, demand for improved services.
and esthetic problems within a week, there is a need to regu- The study result can be extrapolated to all households in
larly collect and transport waste to disposal sites like sanitary the studied Woredas. In the selected Woredas, there were
landfills. Both explanations could influence the respondents to about 21 844 households. The aggregate WTP was calculated
agree and WTP more for the proposed waste collection pro- by considering the present amount of willingness to pay.
gram. Similarly, respondents who sell or exchange recyclable Extrapolating the values, the aggregated monthly WTP (89%)
materials had higher WTP than those who do not practice. found to be 812 640.5 ETB (~18 681.4 US$). A recent report
Girma et al 9

revealed that only one-fourth of the generated waste was col- as households were not the only waste generators, other stud-
lected and disposed of, with a monthly budget of less than ies have to assess governmental organizations, institutions, and
200 000 Ethiopian birrs.61 This implies that the aggregate marketplaces’ contributions to MSWM in the city. Finally, yet
WTP amount can significantly increase the coverage of solid importantly, combining valuation methods could bring better
waste collection services if well collected, organized, and WTP estimation; thus, further studies might consider using
implemented. other methods, such as discrete choice experiments.
Strengths and limitations of the study: The study
employed the Tobit model to reduce inconsistency in the Acknowledgements
model, like in the case of Ordinary Least Square (OLS), which The authors would like to acknowledge Haramaya University,
gives inconsistent and biased estimates. The Tobit model is Department of Environmental Health Science, for their
recommended when the outcome variable is not fully observed, material support. We also thank Harari regional state munici-
that is, if there are zero values for a substantial part of the sam- pality and respective woredas for cooperating during data
ple, which is the case in this study. The study also implemented collection.
a double-bounded dichotomous choice format, which is rec-
ommended and easier to understand by the respondents than Author Contributions
other methods like single-bounded. On the other hand, the HG and AG contributed to the study conception, tool devel-
study failed to investigate the households’ preferred charging opment, and design. AG and MA approved the proposal with
methods, such as flat rate (ie, the same amount of money paid some revisions, participated in data analysis, and revised subse-
regardless of the quantity of waste generated), volume-based, quent drafts of the paper. HG, GM, and MG wrote the first
and weight-based. Future studies might thus consider incorpo- draft of the manuscript and revised the following changes. BD
rating preferred charging methods. In addition, even though critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and
measures were taken to mitigate hypothetical bias (ie, respond- approved the submitted version.
ents might not behave the same way as they stated in a hypo-
thetical experiment), the study might be subjected to it. The Data availability statement
measures were (ie, ex-ante approaches) informing the partici- Data available on request from the authors
pants about the current service delivery and future improve-
ments to reduce their uncertainty, pretests to reveal the truth in Supplemental material
the proposed bid, and alternative bid prices based on the Supplemental material for this article is available online.
respondent’s first choice.

Conclusions and Recommendations References

The study area’s municipal solid waste management system has 1. Birhanu Y, Berisa G. Assessment of solid waste management practices and the
role of public participation in Jigjiga town, Somali regional state, Ethiopia. Int J
no solid waste collection charge imposed on the inhabitants. Environ Prot Policy. 2015;3:153-168.
Our findings revealed that about 89% of the respondents were 2. Lema G, Mesfun MG, Eshete A, Abdeta G. Assessment of status of solid waste
management in Asella town, Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1261.
willing to pay one of the proposed bids for MSWC services. 3. Gondo T. A hierarchical cluster-based segmentation analysis of potential solid
This suggests that improved MSWC services are essential and waste management health hazards in urban Ethiopia. J Disaster Risk Stud.
2019;11:716.
are supported by the inhabitants. The user’s willingness to pay 4. USAID. Situational Analysis of Urban Sanitation and Waste Management.
was influenced by socioeconomic status and current solid waste Strengthening Ethiopia’s Urban Health Program (SEUHP); 2015.
management practices at the household level. Being married, 5. Bewketu E. Assessment of the Sustainability of Solid Waste Collection and Transport
Service Delivery by MSEs: The Case of Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia. Master thesis.
having a higher household income, being educated about International Institute of Urban Management; 2013.
MSWM, having temporary storage at the household level, and 6. Getahun T, Mengistie E, Haddis A, et al. Municipal solid waste generation in
growing urban areas in Africa: current practices and relation to socioeconomic
selling or exchanging recyclable materials increase the likeli- factors in Jimma, Ethiopia. Environ Monit Assess. 2012;184:6337-6345.
hood of respondents’ WTP. 7. Asefa EM, Damtew YT, Barasa KB. Landfill site selection using GIS based
multicriteria evaluation technique in Harar city, eastern Ethiopia. Environ
Based on the present study, the following points were rec- Health Insights. 2021;15:11786302211053174.
ommended. First, to enhance users’ WTP, we recommend 8. Negussie B, Mustefa J. Community’s perception of utilization and disposal of
plastic bags in eastern Ethiopia. Pollution. 2017;3:147-156.
interventions like providing promotional and education pro- 9. Ferronato N, Torretta V. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: a
grams about waste handling and recycling and providing or review of global issues. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:1060.
motivating households to have temporary storage in their 10. dos Muchangos LS, Tokai A. Greenhouse gas emission analysis of upgrading
from an open dump to a semi-aerobic landfill in Mozambique – the case of
houses or neighborhoods. The policy implication of the find- Hulene dumpsite. Sci Afr. 2020;10:e00638.
ing is that community participation in terms of service charges 11. Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, Van Woerden F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snap-
shot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. World Bank Publications; 2018.
could be a means to sustainable financing. Thus, the local gov- 12. Alam P, Ahmade K. Impact of solid waste on health and the environment. Int J
ernment must work on convincing and participating in the Sustainable Dev Green Econ. 2013;2:165-168.
13. Sankoh FP, Yan X, Tran Q. Environmental and health impact of solid waste dis-
community to pay a service fee for house-to-house waste col- posal in developing cities: a case study of Granville brook dumpsite, Freetown,
lection, which could support financial constraints. In addition, Sierra Leone. J Environ Prot. 2013;4:665-670.
10 Environmental Health Insights 

14. Ramachandra TV, Bharath HA, Kulkarni G, Han SS. Municipal solid waste: 37. Abas MA, Hassin NH, Hambali KA, et al. Public satisfaction and willingness
generation, composition and GHG emissions in Bangalore, India. Renew Sustain to pay (WTP) for better solid waste management services in rural area of Kel-
Energ Rev. 2018;82:1122-1136. antan, Malaysia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.
15. Wilson DC, Velis CA. Waste management – still a global challenge in the 2021;756:012083.
21st century: an evidence-based call for action. Waste Manage Res. 2015; 38. CSA. Populations projections for Ethiopia. Central Statistical Agency, 2013.
33:1049-1051. 39. EDHS. Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey 2019: Final Report;
16. Ali T. Assessment of Solid Waste Management System in Khartoum Locality. UOFK 2021.
Khartoum; 2015. 40. Carson RT, Hanemann WM. Contingent valuation. Handbook of Environmental
17. Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W. Solid waste management challenges for cit- Economics. 2005;2:821-936.
ies in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2013;33:220-232. 41. Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, et al. Contemporary guidance for stated
18. Khan S, Anjum R, Raza ST, Ahmed Bazai N, Ihtisham M. Technologies for preference studies. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ. 2017;4:319-405.
municipal solid waste management: current status, challenges, and future per- 42. Cawley J. Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce child-
spectives. Chemosphere. 2022;288:132403. hood obesity. Econ Hum Biol. 2008;6:281-292.
19. Bernad-Beltrán D, Simó A, Bovea MD. Attitude towards the incorporation of 43. David P, Giles A, Susan M. Cost-Benefit Aanalysis and the Eenvironment: The Rre-
the selective collection of biowaste in a municipal solid waste management sys- cent Ddevelopments. OECD; 2006.
tem: a case study. Waste Manag. 2014;34:2434-2444. 44. Fattahi Ardakani A, Alavi C, Arab M. The comparison of discrete payment
20. Al-Khateeb AJ, Al-Sari MI, Al-Khatib IA, Anayah F. Factors affecting the sus- vehicle methods (dichotomous choice) in improving the quality of the environ-
tainability of solid waste management system-the case of Palestine. Environ ment. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2017;14:1409-1418.
Monit Assess. 2017;189:93. 45. Entele BR. Analysis of households’ willingness to pay for a renewable source of
21. Ferrara I, Missios P. Recycling and waste diversion effectiveness: evidence from electricity service connection: evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous
Canada. Environ Resour Econ. 2005;30:221-238. choice survey in rural Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2020;6:e03332.
22. Babaei AA, Alavi N, Goudarzi G, Teymouri P, Ahmadi K, Rafiee M. House- 46. Wegedie K, Eyasu A, Yizengaw Y, Shiferaw G. Analysis of households’ willing-
hold recycling knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards solid waste manage- ness to pay for improved solid waste management services in Gondar city, Ethio-
ment. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2015;102:94-100. pia: evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation method.
23. Omotayo AO, Omotoso AB, Daud AS, Ogunniyi AI, Olagunju KO. What Research Square, 2020.
drives households’ payment for waste disposal and recycling behaviours? Empiri- 47. Alemu GT, Tsunekawa A, Haregeweyn N, et al. Smallholder farmers’ willing-
cal evidence from South Africa’s General Household Survey. Int J Environ Res. ness to pay for sustainable land management practices in the Upper Blue Nile
2020;17:7188. basin, Ethiopia. Environ Dev Sustain. 2021;23:5640-5665.
24. Odonkor ST, Adom PK. Environment and health nexus in Ghana: A study on 48. Halstead JM, Lindsay BE, Brown CM. Use of the Tobit model in contingent
perceived relationship and willingness-to-participate (WTP) in environmental valuation: experimental evidence from the Pemigewasset Wilderness area.
policy design. Urban Clim. 2020;34:100689. J Environ Manag. 1991;33:79-89.
25. Girma H, Hugé J, Gebrehiwot M, Van Passel S. Farmers’ willingness to contrib- 49. Verbeek M. A Guide to Modern Econometrics. John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
ute to the restoration of an Ethiopian Rift Valley lake: a contingent valuation 50. Ibsa Dadi B. Estimating households’ maximum willingness to pay for
study. Environ Dev Sustainability. 2021;23:10646-10665. improved solid waste management services: in case of Batu town administra-
26. Memon MA, Matsuoka S. Validity of contingent valuation estimates from develop- tion: Oromia, Ethiopia. International Journal of Economy, Energy, and Envi-
ing countries: scope sensitivity analysis. Environ Econ Policy Stud. 2002;5:39-61. ronment. 2020;5:74.
27. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Val- 51. Endalew B, Tassie K. Urban households’ demand for improved solid waste man-
uation Method. RFF Press; 2013. agement service in Bahir Dar city: a contingent valuation study. Cogent Environ
28. Liang Y, Song Q , Liu G, Li J. Uncovering residents and restaurants’ attitude and Sci. 2018;4:1426160.
willingness toward effective food waste management: a case study of Macau. 52. Genati G, Ahmednur M, Berihun G, Teym A. Assessment of Household Solid
Waste Manag. 2021;130:107-116. Waste Management Practice and Associated Factors in Debre Berhan Town,
29. Nain P, Kumar A. Understanding manufacturers’ and consumers’ perspectives Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Int J Waste Resour. 2021;11:416.
towards end-of-life solar photovoltaic waste management and recycling. Environ 53. Oyawole FP, Ajayi OP, Aminu RO, Akerele D. Willingness to pay for improved
Dev Sustain. 2022;1-21. solid waste management services in an urbanizing area in south-East Nigeria.
30. Rahji MA, Oloruntoba EO. Determinants of households’ willingness-to-pay for Ethiop J Environ Stud Manag. 2016;9:793-803.
private solid waste management services in Ibadan, Nigeria. Waste Manage Res. 54. Kayamo SE. Willingness to pay for solid waste management improvement in
2009;27:961-965. Hawassa city, Ethiopia. J Environ Manag. 2022;302:113973.
31. Wang H, He J, Kim Y, Kamata T. Municipal solid waste management in rural 55. Nahimana E. Households Willingness to Pay for Solid Waste Collection Services in
areas and small counties: an economic analysis using contingent valuation to esti- Secondary Cities of Rwanda. University of Rwanda; 2021.
mate willingness to pay for Yunnan, China. Waste Manage Res. 2014;32:695-706. 56. Abed Al Ahad M, Chalak A, Fares S, Mardigian P, Habib RR. Decentraliza-
32. Tassie K, Endalew B. Willingness to pay for improved solid waste management tion of solid waste management services in rural Lebanon: barriers and oppor-
services and associated factors among urban households: one and one half tunities. Waste Manage Res. 2020;38:639-648.
bounded contingent valuation study in Bahir Dar city, Ethiopia. Cogent Environ 57. Okot J, Koech M. Households’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Municipal Solid
Sci. 2020;6:1807275. Waste Management Services in Kampala, Uganda. Pawani University; 2012.
33. Boateng KS, Agyei-Baffour P, Boateng D, Rockson GNK, Mensah KA, Edusei 58. Thirumarpan K, Dilsath MSA. Household willingness to pay for improved solid
AK. Household willingness-to-pay for improved solid waste management ser- waste management in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka. Trop Agric Res Ext. 2016;18:76.
vices in four major metropolitan cities in Ghana. J Environ Public Health. 59. Chinh PC, Hung NTQ , Ky NM, Ai NTL, Tam NM. Willingness to Pay for
2019;2019:5468381. improving household solid waste management in Vietnam. Appl Environ Res.
34. Maskey B, Singh M. Households’ willingness to pay for improved waste collec- 2021;43:1-14.
tion service in Gorkha municipality of Nepal. Environments. 2017;4:77. 60. Tassie K. Household behavior and demand for better solid waste management
35. Niringiye A. Determinants of willingness to pay for solid waste management in services: a case of Bahir Dar City, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia.
Kampala City. Curr Res J Econ Theory. 2010;2:119-122. J Waste Recycl. 2018;3:1.
36. Mulat S, Worku W, Minyihun A. Willingness to pay for improved solid waste 61. MS Consultancy. Development of an integrated citywide sanitation plan: feasi-
management and associated factors among households in Injibara town, North- bility study and detail design of wastewater management system for Harar city.
west Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12:401. 2021. Accessed October 2, 2022. http://ms-consultancy-et.com/story.php?id=24