Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Aug 1;115(3-4):130-42.
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.03.028. Epub 2014 Apr 6.

Willingness to pay for contagious bovine pleuropneumonia vaccination in Narok South District of Kenya

Affiliations

Willingness to pay for contagious bovine pleuropneumonia vaccination in Narok South District of Kenya

Salome W Kairu-Wanyoike et al. Prev Vet Med. .

Abstract

Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) is an economically important trans-boundary cattle disease which affects food security and livelihoods. A conjoint analysis-contingent valuation was carried out on 190 households in Narok South District of Kenya to measure willingness to pay (WTP) and demand for CBPP vaccine and vaccination as well as factors affecting WTP. The mean WTP was calculated at Kenya Shillings (KSh) 212.48 (USD 3.03) for vaccination using a vaccine with the characteristics that were preferred by the farmers (preferred vaccine and vaccination) and KSh -71.45 (USD -1.02) for the currently used vaccine and vaccination. The proportion of farmers willing to pay an amount greater than zero was 66.7% and 34.4% for the preferred and current vaccine and vaccination respectively. About one third (33.3%) of farmers would need to be compensated an average amount of KSh 1162.62 (USD 13.68) per animal to allow their cattle to be vaccinated against CBPP using the preferred vaccine and vaccination. About two-thirds (65.6%) of farmers would need to be compensated an average amount of KSh 853.72 (USD 12.20) per animal to allow their cattle to be vaccinated against CBPP using the current vaccine and vaccination. The total amount of compensation would be KSh 61.39 million (USD 0.88 million) for the preferred vaccine and vaccination and KSh 90.15 million (USD 1.29 million) for the current vaccine and vaccination. Demand curves drawn from individual WTP demonstrated that only 59% and 27% of cattle owners with a WTP greater than zero were willing to pay a benchmark cost of KSh 34.60 for the preferred and current vaccine respectively. WTP was negatively influenced by the attitude about household economic situation (p=0.0078), presence of cross breeds in the herd (p<0.0001) and years since CBPP had been experienced in the herd (p=0.0375). It was positively influenced by education (p=0.0251) and the practice of treating against CBPP (p=0.0432). The benefit cost ratio (BCR) for CBPP vaccination was 2.9-6.1 depending on the vaccination programme. In conclusion, although a proportion of farmers was willing to pay, participation levels may be lower than those required to interrupt transmission of CBPP. Households with characteristics that influence WTP negatively need persuasion to participate in CBPP vaccination. It is economically worthwhile to vaccinate against CBPP. A benefit cost analysis (BCA) using aggregated WTP as benefits can be used as an alternative method to the traditional BCA which uses avoided production losses (new revenue) and costs saved as benefits.

Keywords: Conjoint analysis–contingent valuation; Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia; Kenya; Narok; Vaccination; Vaccine; Willingness to pay.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Map of the herds and households surveyed in the study divisions, Narok South District, Kenya, 2006.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Proportion of farmers to be compensated to allow use of current and preferred CBPP vaccine and vaccination, Narok South District, Kenya, 2006.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Cumulative proportion of respondents willing to pay for current and preferred CBPP vaccine and vaccination, Narok South District, Kenya, 2006.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994;26:271–292.
    1. AU/IBAR . 2004. Report on the PanAfrican Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE)
    1. Workshop on Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia; 25–27 February, Guinea-Conakry; African Union Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU/IBAR); 2004.
    1. Brown T.C. Introduction to stated preference methods. In: Champ P.A., Boyle K.J., Brown T.C., editors. A Primer on Market Valuation. Springer; New York, USA: 2005. pp. 99–110.
    1. Casey J.F. Conjoint analysis of farmer preferences for agro-forestry in Calakmul, Mexico. In: Alberini A., Kahn J.R., editors. The Handbook of Contingent Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishers; Mexico: 2009. pp. 340–353.

Publication types

MeSH terms