Abstract
AbstractWe conducted a choice experiment (CE) to estimate willingness to accept (WTA) values for a planned conditional cash transfer (CCT) programme designed to increase toilet use in South Africa. The payment is made conditional on using a toilet and bringing urine to a central collection point. In a split-sample approach, a segment of respondents were given time to think (TTT) (24 hours) about their responses, while the remaining respondents had to answer immediately. We found significant differences in the choice behaviour between the subsamples. To validate the stated preferences with actual behaviour, a CCT programme was implemented afterwards. The stated WTA estimates were far below those revealed by actual behaviour for both subsamples. Contrary to our expectations, the TTT group had underestimated their actual WTA values by an even larger margin. The preferences for various attributes were nevertheless useful in informing the design of the real intervention.
Highlights
A choice experiment (CE) was conducted in South Africa in order to estimate the willingness to accept (WTA) payment for a conditional cash transfer (CCT) programme aimed at increasing toilet use among rural households in South Africa
Using a CE we illustrated the relative importance of different CCT programme attributes, estimated the WTA payments for participation in different CCT programmes, tested the impact of giving respondents time to think (TTT) on choice behaviour and welfare measures in a split-sample approach, and compared the degree of hypothetical bias between the two samples by comparing stated WTA values derived from the CE with actual behaviour in the implemented CCT programme
The largest difference found between the TTT and No-TTT subsamples was in terms of the payment vehicle
Summary
Despite being criticized for requiring the recipient to bear the opportunity costs associated with participation and for making the cash transfer conditional on a behaviour change, CCTs have generally contributed to improved health and educational outcomes (Jehan et al, 2012; Saavedra and Garcia, 2013). Their long-term effects on poverty are unclear (Cueto, 2009). All are potential criticisms of SP methods and, there have been numerous studies investigating biases, there is no single method of eliminating them completely (Murphy et al, 2005)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
