Department of Environmental Science, Kinnaird College for Women, 93- Jail Road, Lahore, Pakistan


Rapid urbanization and severe air quality deterioration in Pakistan have increased citizens’s concern towards air pollution. This study, conducted in November, 2016, aimed to develop relationship between degraded air quality and resident’s willingness to pay for improved air quality in city of Lahore, Pakistan through contingent valuation method to quantify an individual’s willingness to pay for improved air quality. Hypothetical market was created and 250 respondents, selected through random sampling, were asked to respond to pre tested questionnaire. Results revealed that 92.5% of respondents showed positive willingness to pay and average predicted willingness to pay by each person was $9.86 per month. Respondents were willing to pay $118 per year which was 1.27% of their mean monthly income. Stepwise regression model was used to develop relationship between independent variables and willingness to pay. Most parameters accompanied by econometric analysis elaborated expected results. Results disclosed that annual household income, symptoms of respiratory diseases and self observed air pollution pointedly impact willingness to pay. It is concluded that despite of the fact that Pakistan is among the lower income countries with no rigid budget allocation for improvement in air quality, people of Pakistan are willing to pay to reduce air pollution load. One of the factor which effected the positivity of willingness to pay is that, a quite large number of people were suffering from pollution related respiratory disorders like asthma, chronic bronchitis, wheezing, cough, and chest congestion. Only 7.5% of respondents were not interested to pay for improved air quality which reported unconcerned attitude and lack of environmental awareness.

Graphical Abstract

Assessment of willingness to pay for improved air quality using contingent valuation method


  • Willingness to pay regarding improved air quality was applied using contingent valuation method
  • 92.5% of respondents showed positive WTP and average predicted WTP by each person was $9.86 per month and $118 per year 
  • The study ensures policy makers and Environment Protection Department of Pakistan that people of developing countries are willing to pay and invest for the improvement of environmental quality.


Akhtar, S.; Ahmad, A.S.; Qureshi, M.I.; Shahraz, S., (2017). Households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 3(2): 143-152 (10 pages).

Alberini, A., (1997). Valuing health effects of air pollution in developing countries: The case of Taiwan. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 34: 107-126 (20 pages).

Ali, Z.; Rauf, A.; Sidra, S.; Nasir, Z.A.; Colbeck, I., (2015). Air quality particulate matter at heavy traffic sites in Lahore, Pakistan. J. Animal Plant Sci., 25(3 S2): 644-648 (5 pages).

Arrow, K.; Solow, R.; Portney, P. R.; Leamer, E. E.; Radner, R.; Schuman, H., (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, resources for the future, Washington 58(10): 4601-4614 (14 pages).

Amer, P., (2015). Air pollution leads to premature deaths, in millions. Nature Middle East.

Aziz, A.; Bajwa, I.U., (2008). Erroneous mass transit system and its tended relationship with motor vehicular air pollution: An integrated approach for reduction of urban air pollution in Lahore. Environ. Monit. Assessment. 137(1): 25-33 (9 pages).

Afroz, R.; Hassan, M.; Ibrahim, N., (2005). Willingness to pay for air quality improvements in Klang Valley Malaysia. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 1(3): 194-201 (8 pages).

Carlsson, F; Johansson-Stenman, O., (2000). Willingness to pay for improved air quality in Sweden. Appl. Econ. 32(6):661-669 (9 pages). Choe, K.; Whittington, D.; Lauria, D.T., (1996). The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: A case study of Dauao, Philippines. Land Econ., 72: 519-537 (19 pages).

Cohen, A.J.; Ross Anderson, H.; Ostro, B.; Pandey, K.D.; Krzyzanowski, M.; Künzli, N.; Smith, K., (2005). The global burden of disease due to outdoor air pollution. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part A 68 (13-14): 1301-1307 (7 pages).

Cropper, M., N.; Simon, N. B.; Alberini, A.; Arora, S.; Sharma, P.K., (1997). The health benefits of air pollution control in delhi. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 79(5): 1625-1629 (5 pages).

Filippini, M.; Martínez-Cruz, A.L., (2016). Impact of environmental and social attitudes, and family concerns on willingness to pay for improved air quality: a contingent valuation application in Mexico City. Latin Am. Econ. Rev., 25(1): 7-25 (19 pages).

Gaviria, C.; Martínez, D., (2013). Air pollution and the willingness to pay of exposed individuals in downtown medellín, Colombia, (80) (30 pages).

Gbinlo, E., (2006). Evaluation du coût social de la pollution de l’air par les taxis motosa Cotonou." Bénin, Institut de l’énergie et de l’environnement de la Francophonie 1: 01-08 (8 pages).

Greenstone, M.; Jack, B.K., (2013). Envirodevonomics: A research agenda for a young field. NBER Working Paper (19426).

Hausman, J.A., (1993). Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Hanemann, M., (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1), 19-43 (25 pages).

Huang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Bozzetti, C.; Ho, K.F.; Cao, J.J.; Han, Y.; Zotter, P., (2014). High secondary aerosol contribution to particulate pollution during haze events in China. Nature.

Krupnick, A.J.; Rowe, R.D.; Lang, C.M., (1997). Transportation and air pollution: the environmental damages. In the full costs and benefits of transportation. Springer Berlin Heidelb. 1: 337-369 (33 pages).

Li, B., (1994). The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods. Resour. Policy 20(4): 281-282 (2 pages).

Lockwood, M.; Tracey, P.; Klomp, N. (1996). Analysing conflict between cultural heritage and nature conservation in the Australian Alps. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 3(1): 212-220 (9 pages).

Maloma, I., (2014). Factors that determine the stated willingness to pay for air pollution: A case of Bophelong Township. Int. J. Social Sci. Hum. Stud. 6(2): 1-11 (11 pages).

Peng, X.Z.; Tian, W.H., (2003). Study on willingness to pay about air pollution on economic loss in Shanghai. World Economic Forum, 3: 32–44 (13 pages).

Raza, A. (2016, November 4). Rallies, vehicular pollution behind smog. The International news.

Kumar, S.; Rao, D. N., (2006). Willingness to pay estimates of improved air quality: a case study In Panipat thermal power station colony, India. SSRN Electron. J., 1: 1-16 (16 pages).

Pearce, D.; Crowards, T., (1996). Particulate matter and human health in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 24: 609- 619 (11 pages).

Shahnoushi Froshani, N.; Motallebi, M.; Yazdan Bakhsh, S.A.R.A.; Ashktorab, N., (2010). Estimation of willingness to pay for air quality improvements (Case study: Mashhad, Iran) 5th International conference Social Responsibility and Current Challenges (7 pages).

Smith, V., (1992). Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts: Comment. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 22: 71- 89 (19 pages).

Solomon, P., (2012). Introduction: special issue of air quality, atmosphere and health for air pollution and health: bridging the gap from sources-to-health outcomes. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 5(1): 3-8 (6 pages).

Van der Wall, E., (2015). Air pollution: 6.6 million premature deaths in 2050. Netherland Heart J, 23(12): 557-558 (2 pages).

Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y., (2009). Air quality assessment by contingent valuation in Ji'nan, China. J. Environ. Manage. 90(2): 1022-1029 (8 pages).

Wang, X.J.; Zhang, W.; Li, Y.; Yang, K.Z.; Bai, M., (2006). Air quality improvement estimation and assessment using contingent valuation method: a case study in Beijing. Environ. Monit. Assess. 120(1): 153-168 (16 pages).

Yamamoto, S.; Phalkey, R.; Malik, A., (2014). A systematic review of air pollution as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in South Asia: Limited evidence from India and Pakistan. Int. J. Hygiene Environ. Health 217(2-3): 133-144 (12 pages). 

Letters to Editor

GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.