Evaluating contingent and actual contributions to a local public good: Tsetse control in the Yale agro-pastoral zone, Burkina Faso

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKamuanga, M.en
dc.contributor.authorSwallow, Brent M.en
dc.contributor.authorSigué, H.en
dc.contributor.authorBauer, B.en
dc.contributor.departmentSustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (SANREM) Knowledgebaseen
dc.coverage.spatialBurkina Fasoen
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-19T19:10:53Zen
dc.date.available2016-04-19T19:10:53Zen
dc.date.issued2001en
dc.descriptionMetadata only recorden
dc.description.abstractIn this case study of the Yale agro-pastoral zone in southern Burkina Faso, the sustainability of tsetse control as a local public good was shown to depend upon farmers' contributions to establish and maintain the traps and targets that attract and kill tsetse flies. Contingent valuation (CV) techniques were used to generate estimates of farmers' willingness to pay for tsetse control in money, labour, or both forms of payment. Of the 261 households that participated in the CV survey, these proportions were 23, 37 and 40 percent, respectively, indicating differentiation among the population and an overall preference for labour contribution. A comparison of predicted versus actual contribution of labour indicated that only 56 percent of households that said they would contribute actually contributed; 3 percent of households that said they would not contribute actually contributed. Major factors affecting contingent contributions of labour in discrete choice models were identified, as well as those to account for in any successful scheme for actual labour contribution. These factors include the age of household head, offtake of cattle, involvement in secondary activities, membership in rural organizations, current expenditure on drug therapy, and cash-on-hand. The results also indicate that full cost-recovery of the investment in targets--about US$8000--could not be achieved in the short run with the proposed contribution of US$0.90-1.00 per month per household. Contingent contributions of money were interpreted as maximum donations to expect of beneficiaries as part of the total cost of providing tsetse control.--abstract from Journalen
dc.format.mimetypetext/plainen
dc.identifier1835en
dc.identifier.citationEcological Economics 39(1): 115-130en
dc.identifier.issn0921-8009en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/66405en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherElsevier Science B.V.en
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2001 Elsevier Science B.V.en
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectLivestocken
dc.subjectContingent valuationen
dc.subjectDiscrete choice modelsen
dc.subjectLabouren
dc.subjectLivestocken
dc.subjectTsetseen
dc.subjectTrypanosomosis controlen
dc.subjectEcosystem Farm/Enterprise Scaleen
dc.titleEvaluating contingent and actual contributions to a local public good: Tsetse control in the Yale agro-pastoral zone, Burkina Fasoen
dc.typeAbstracten
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten

Files

Collections

Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (SANREM) Knowledgebase