Valuing the Benefits of Cleaner Air in Jakarta Metropolitan Area

  • Mia Amalia
  • Budy P. ResosudarmoEmail author
  • Jeff Bennett
  • Arianto Patunru
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 24)


Air pollution negatively impacts the society in the form of health problems, unpleasant odour and low visibility. We estimate the benefit of having cleaner ambient air for the Jakarta Metropolitan Area’s (JMA) citizens. The value people place on an improvement in air quality resulting from the implementation of three new transportation policies is estimated using choice modelling with four attributes: restricted activity days (RADs), visibility, odour and implementation costs. A public survey was conducted in the JMA across approximately 650 respondents. The implicit prices for individual attributes are estimated using conditional logit (CL) and random parameter logit (RPL) models. The results show that the respondents have significantly positive values for a lower number of RADs and less unpleasant odour. On average, respondents in the JMA are willing to pay from USD54 to USD57 per household per annum over a 3-year period for the implementation of a new transportation policy. This translates into a total benefit to the community in the range of USD219 million to USD230 million per year.


Air pollution Cost-benefit analysis Choice modelling Transportation policy Jakarta Metropolitan Area 



The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, the Australian National University’s Vice Chancellor’s Office and Australia’s DFAT-Aid. All mistakes however are the authors’ own responsibility.


  1. Adamowicz W, Swait J, Boxall P, Louviere J (1997) Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 32:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Bappenas) (National Development Planning Agency) (2006) Strategi dan rencana aksi nasional perbaikan kualitas udara perkotaan (in Indonesian). Bappenas, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett J, Adamowics V (2001) Some fundamentals of environmental choice modeling. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  4. Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006) Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecol Econ 60:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blamey R, Gordon J, Chapman R (1999) Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 43:337–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Louviere JJ, Morrison MD, Rolfe J (2000) A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies. Ecol Econ 32:269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brey R, Riera P, Mogas J (2007) Estimation of forest values using choice modelling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecol Econ 64:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Concu GB (2006) Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach, risk and sustainable management group. University of Queensland, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene WH (2007) NLOGIT version 4.0: reference guide. Econometric Software, PlainviewGoogle Scholar
  10. Greene WH (2007b) NLOGIT 4 student version: user’s guide. Econometric Software, PlainviewGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamonangan E, Kondo A, Kaga A, Inoue Y, Soda S, Yamaguchi K (2002) Simulation and monitoring of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. Asian J Energy Environ 3:159–183Google Scholar
  12. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv 15:435–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haryanto B (2012) Human health risk to ultrafine particles in Jakarta. Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat NasionalGoogle Scholar
  14. Health Effect Institute (2004) Health effects of outdoor air pollution in developing countries of Asia: a literature review, Special Report 15. Health Effect Institute, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hess S, Train K, Polak J (2006) On the use of a modified latin hypercube sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a mixed logit model for vehicle choice. Transp Res B 40:147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hynes S, Hanley N, Scarpa R (2008) Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. Am J Agric Econ 90:1011–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Indonesian Multi-sectoral Action Plan (IMAP) Group on Vehicle Emissions Reduction (IMAP) (2002) Action plan: integrated vehicle emission reduction strategy for Greater Jakarta, Indonesia. Asian Development Bank, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  19. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) (2003) Trans-Jakarta bus rapid transit system technical review. ITDP, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  20. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) (2005) Making Trans-Jakarta a world class BRT system. ITDP, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  21. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) (2007) Presentation to the Governor of Jakarta: making trans-Jakarta a world class BRT system. ITDP, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  22. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Badan Pengendalian Lingkungan Hidup (Bapedal) (National Pollution Control Agency) (1997) Final report volume I main report: the study on the integrated air quality management for Jakarta Metropolitan Area. JICA and Bapedal, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  23. Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup (KLH) (2003) The Ministry of Environment Decree (MED) No.141/2003, new type and current production motor vehicle exhaust emission standards (CPMV standard). KLH, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerr GN, Sharp BMH (2008) Evaluating off-site environmental mitigation using choice modelling. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52:381–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liljenstolpe C (2008) Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness 24:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lusk JL, Nilsson T, Foster K (2007) Public preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environ Resour Econ 36:499–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mazzanti M (2001) Discrete choice models and valuation experiments an application for cultural heritage. University of Rome III, RomeGoogle Scholar
  29. Morrison M, Bennett J (2004) Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 48:591–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nugroho SB, Fujiwara A, Zhang J (2005) Evaluating the effects of a new vehicle emission standard on urban air quality in Jakarta City. J Int Dev Cooperation 11:11–30Google Scholar
  31. Ostro B (1994) Estimating the health effects of air pollutants: a method with an application to Jakarta, Policy Research Working Paper, no. 1301. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Othman J, Bennett J, Blamey R (2004) Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modelling experience in Malaysia. Environ Dev Econ 9:803–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pemerintah Propinsi DKI Jakarta (Provincial Government of Jakarta) (2005) Peraturan Daerah No. 2/2005 tentang pengendalian pencemaran udara (Jakarta’s Provincial Regulation No. 2/2005 regarding air pollution control (Jakarta APC)). Pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  34. Pemerintah Republik Indonesia (Indonesian Government) (1999) Peraturan pemerintah No. 41/1999 tentang pengendalian pencemaran udara (Government regulation No. 41/1999 regarding Indonesian national air pollution control policy (NAPC)). Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  35. Pemerintah Republik Indonesia (Indonesian Government) (2000) Peraturan pemerintah No. 25/2000 tentang kewenangan pemerintah provinsi dan kabupaten/kota (Government regulation No. 25/2000 regarding provincial and local governments’ responsibility (PLGR)). Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  36. Provencher B, Moore R (2006) A discussion of “Using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: a latent class model”. Environ Resour Econ 34:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2000) Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol Econ 35:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ, Hensher DA, Collins AT (2008) Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp Res Part B 42:395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sadat DN, Hanif F, Murhajanti P, Napitupulu L, Syahril S, Husin S, Soejachmoen MH (2005) Udara bersih hak kita bersama (In Indonesian), Pelangi and Indonesia Center for Environmental Law, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  40. Street DJ, Burgess L, Louviere JJ (2005) Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int J Res Mark 22:459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suhadi D, Awang M, Hassan MN, Abdullah R, Muda AH (2005) Review of photochemical smog pollution in Jakarta Metropolitan, Indonesia. Am J Environ Sci 1:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Syahril S, Resosudarmo BP, Tomo HS (2002) Study on air quality Jakarta, Indonesia future trends, health impacts, economic value and policy options. The Asian Development Bank, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  43. The World Bank (2006) World development indicators. The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  44. The World Bank (2012) World development indicators. The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  45. Verbeek M (2004) A guide to modern econometrics, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang X, Bennett J, Xie C, Zhang S, Liang D (2006) Estimating non market environmental benefits of the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland program: a choice modelling approach. Ecol Econ 63:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mia Amalia
    • 1
  • Budy P. Resosudarmo
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jeff Bennett
    • 3
  • Arianto Patunru
    • 2
  1. 1.Indonesian National Development Planning AgencyJakartaIndonesia
  2. 2.Arndt-Corden Department of EconomicsAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Crawford School of Public PolicyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations