71841 MONGOLIA Environment and natural resource management socio-economic survey for Mongolia (enrmss 2010) May, 2011 THE WORLD BANK @ 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA May 2011 All rights reserved. This study was prepared by the Social, Environment and Rural Development Unit (EASER) of the East Asia and Pacific Region, and was funded by the World Bank’s Netherlands-Mongolia Trust Fund for Environmental Reform. Social, environment and rural development issues are an integral part of the development challenge in the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) Region. The World Bank’s Sustainable Development Strategy for the region provides the conceptual framework for setting priorities, strengthening the policy and institutional frameworks for sustainable development, and addressing key environmental, social and rural development challenges through projects, programs, policy dialogue, non-lending services, and partnerships. The EASER Discussion Paper series provides a forum for discussion on good practices and policy issues within the development community and with client countries. The publication available online at www.worldbank.org/mn and www. worldbank.org/nemo. Suggested citation: Alejandro Caparrós. 2011. Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mon- golia (ENRMSS 2010) Mongolia Discussion Papers, East Asia and Pacific Sustainable Development Depart- ment. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Contact details for authors: Alejandro Caparrós The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). E-mail: alejandro.caparros@cchs.csic.es This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concern- ing the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750- 8400, fax 978-750-4470, www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. ii Table of contents Abbreviation....................................................................................................................iv Foreword..........................................................................................................................v Foreword........................................................................................................................ vii Foreword....................................................................................................................... viii Executive summary......................................................................................................... ix 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 2. Main environmental problems.................................................................................. 3 3. Millennium Development Indicators and other relevant indicators........................... 7 3.1. Use of solid fuels (former Millennium Development Indicator).......................... 7 3.2. Access to drinking water (Millennium Developement Indicator 7.8).................. 7 3.3. Sanitation (Millennium Development Indicator 7.9)........................................ 12 3.4. Solid waste...................................................................................................... 12 4. Willingness to pay to improve environmental issues.............................................. 15 4.1. Air pollution in Ulaanbaatar (contingent valuation).......................................... 16 4.2. Drinking water and sanitation (choice experiment)......................................... 19 5. Completing and complementing the Socioeconomic Survey (SES)...................... 23 5.1. Wildlife hunting, fishing, and wild fruits and nuts gathering............................ 23 5.2. Energy............................................................................................................. 27 6. Herders perceptions............................................................................................... 29 7. Perceptions on natural resources management.................................................... 33 8. Recommendations for future surveys.................................................................... 37 Appendix A. The ENRMSS Survey................................................................................ 41 Appendix B. Stated preferences methods..................................................................... 44 B.1. Contingent valuation....................................................................................... 44 B.2 Choice experiments......................................................................................... 49 B.3 The design of the valuation scenarios............................................................. 57 Appendix C. Additional Tables....................................................................................... 60 Appendix D. The questionnaire................................................................................... 132 iii Abbreviation NSO National Statistic Office SES Socio Economic Survey ENRMSS Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio Economic Survey MDI Millennium Development Indicator NEMO 2 Netherland-Mongolia Trust Fund 2 UN United Nations UNEP United Nations Environment Program WHO World Health Organizations UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UB Ulaanbaatar WB World Bank iv Foreword How much do Mongolians value their envi- key challenges: air pollution and desertifi- ronment? This is the simple but fundamen- cation. Mongolians living in rural areas also tal question that motivated the Ministry of talk about the importance of improving ac- Nature, Environment and Tourism and the cess to drinking water and controlling over- National Statistical Office to undertake the grazing.. first national survey in Mongolia devoted to While 90 percent of the people surveyed people’s perceptions of the environmental think that “traditionally, Mongolians respect- issues that the country faces and of the ef- ed nature and the environment”, only 18% fects on their lives. A special focus was put think that their fellowmen still do so today. on the Millennium Development Goal re- This could be cause for concern. However, lated to access to drinking water and sani- the report also shows that there is a signifi- tation, on which Mongolia still has much cant willingness among Mongolians to par- progress to do to achieve the MDG by ticipate in solutions that will improve their 2015, and on air pollution, a key concern to wellbeing and help the environment at the Mongolians living in cities and towns. same time. For example, many Mongolians Mongolia has a rich and beautiful nature – are willing to pay to reduce air pollution in its vast plains and grasslands, dense for- Ulaanbaatar and to improve their access to ests, deep lakes, mountains and deserts, drinking water and sanitation in and outside big blue sky, and an astoundingly diverse of the capital city According to the survey, flora and fauna. Mongolians depend on some families in Ulaanbaatar responded those natural resources for economic, so- that they would be prepared to pay as cial, cultural, religious and leisure activities. much as MNT 328,500 (about US$260) per In today’s fast-growing and rapidly urban- year per household over a 5-year period izing country, a fully integrated approach for a program that would improve air qual- to managing natural resources that incor- ity by 20%. They are willing to pay on aver- porates economic and social aspects is a age MNT 61,000 (US$50) for an improved pressing necessity. access to drinking water and MNT 42,000 (US$35) for sanitation per year. The “Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-Economic Survey for Although most herders perceive that the Mongolia-2010” opens a window on what numbers of animals are increasing – thus Mongolians think about the key environ- possibly contributing to over-grazing – only mental priorities. No matter if they live in 31% consider that something needs to be the country side or in Ulaanbaatar, Mon- done to reduce the number of animals in golians are united in their identification of their soum. One can also wonder how ef- fective collective schemes could be in re- v solving some of the environmental chal- tal management. We hope that the findings lenges in rural areas as about 90 percent of of this report will contribute to the respon- the herders surveyed declare not to belong sible use of Mongolia’s natural resources, to a herders’ group and about 80 percent as well as support the establishment of of them do not consider these groups im- programs to address the most pressing portant. environmental issues of today. Although a long road lies ahead and more research is These results provide a basis for discus- required in the future, we are optimistic that sion among stakeholders about developing this report is a step in the right direction. a fully integrated approach to environmen- Coralie Gevers Ede Ijjiasz- Vasquez Mongolia Resident Representative & Sector Manager for Sustainable Country Manager, The World Bank, Development, The World Bank, Beijing Ulaanbaatar vi Foreword The ‘Environment and Natural Resource and drinking water quality and accessibility Management and Socio-Economic issues in rural areas. Furthermore, the Survey -2010’ project was conducted at report has illustrated with clear statistics the National Statistical Office within the that despite reforestation efforts forest framework of the Netherlands-Mongolia and steppe fires, pest infestations, and Trust Fund for Environmental Reform illegal logging due to human and natural Phase 2 (NEMO II), a program jointly causes, leading to continued shrinking implemented by the Ministry of Nature, of natural forest cover are increasing in Environment and Tourism, and the World scope from year to year. Bank, and financed by the Government of The report highlights the public’s enthusiasm the Netherlands. This is an importance of to participate in environmental protection the survey as it conducted at household and conservation efforts, underscoring level, which is incorporated environmental Mongolians’ historical tradition of nature statistics necessary for the evaluation of conservation. It is evident that more Mongolia’s Millennium Development Goal work needs to be done to encourage and achievement efforts. strengthen the continuity of this tradition. This survey for the first time included a It should be noted that there is a great number of environmental statistics, among need to develop this survey into a regular which are soil deterioration, desertification, exercise and further enhance its scope. deforestation, biodiversity decline, and air pollution – all top environmental priorities We would like to express our sincere for Mongolia. The research stands out gratitude to the Government of the with the organization of these topics into 5 Netherlands, the World Bank, international chapters such as urban and rural areas and consultant Alejandro Capparos, the with the illustration of their impacts on the National Statistical Office, the Ministry of national economy, household economics Nature, Environment and Tourism and the and personal livelihoods. NEMO II program team for supporting the preparation of this report. The results described in the ‘Environment and Natural Resource Management and Socio-Economic Survey- 2010’ report Vice Minister for Nature, Environment and focused on several important issues. Tourism They include air pollution as the most The NEMO II National Project Director urgent problem for Ulaanbaatar city, waste management as a priority in aimag centers, and over-grazing, desertification Ch. Jargalsaikhan vii Foreword Developing an ecology-oriented economy It is our great pleasure to extend our gratitude in line with the concept of global sustainable to the Government of the Kingdom of the development and by ensuring the balance Netherlands for its support and assistance. of environment and economic development We would like to express our sincere thanks is the common challenge for countries to the World Bank, the Ministry of Nature, around the world. Environment and Tourism of Mongolia, the Team of “Netherlands-Mongolia Trust Today when it is necessary for Mongolia Fund for Environmental Reform Phase to develop sustainably the society and 2”, and Mr. Alejandro Caparrós, an economy of the country aligned with International Consultant from the World environment and resource capacities, to Bank, for their collaboration on conducting strengthen the right of its citizens to live the Environment and Natural Resource in a healthy and safe environment, and to Management Socio-Economic Survey. create legal and economic framework, it is of utmost importance to have conducted Extended thanks go to Ms. B. Badamtsetseg, an Environment and Natural Resource Director of Macro-Economics and Statistics Management Socio-economic Survey Department (MESD) of the National canvassing public views on environment Statistical Office of Mongolia (NSO), Ms. under support and assistance from the E. Erdenesan, Deputy Director, MESD, the World Bank and the Government of the NSO, Mr. B. Lkhagvajargal, Senior Officer, Kingdom of the Netherlands. MESD, the NSO, Mr. B. Bayarsaikhan, Officer, MESD, the NSO, for carrying out The Environment and Natural Resource the survey. Management Socio-economic Survey aimed to indentify environmental impact I believe that the survey offers valuable on economic and social life and to canvass data and information for policy and decision public views on environmental issues. makers, scholars and users to carry out Having conducted the survey successfully, their activities further. we are pleased to present results from it. The survey is of partucar importance that it inquires into many issues related to environment and encompasses indicators for the Millennium Development related to S. Mendsaikhan air pollution, access to drinking water and sanitation. Chairman, National Statistical Office of Mongolia viii Executive summary T he first Environment and Natural (MDIs) related to air pollution, access Resource Management Socio- to drinking water and sanitation. These economic Survey for Mongolia MDIs are estimated following international (ENRMSS) has been completed. standards and definitions and, most The aim of this survey was to importantly, the willingness to pay of the investigate public views on environmental population to improve the current levels of issues and to measure the impact of these indicators is investigated using state- environmental problems on human welfare, of-the-art stated-preferences methods. measured in economic terms. This is the After a brief introduction, section 2 reports first national survey in Mongolia devoted what Mongolians deem the most important to the social aspects of environmental environmental issues in their cities/soums issues and it follows the best international and in Mongolia. The results show that standards from design to implementation. air pollution is clearly the most important During the design phase (2009), several environmental issue in Ulaanbaatar while stakeholders involved in the management poor garbage pollution is the main concern of natural resources in Mongolia were in other urban areas (aimag centers). In consulted and up to three different focus rural areas, over-grazing, desertification groups ensured that the opinions of the and access to drinking water are the most general population were taken into account. important issues. At the country level, air The preliminary questionnaire resulting pollution is the main priority. from this process was then tested on 120 subjects before finalizing the questionnaire. Section 3 gives the estimates obtained Interviews were done by trained staff and for the three MDIs mentioned above. sampling has followed the standards of the The proportion of the population with National Statistics Office, ensuring that the sustainable access to an improved water 2805 interviews done for the main survey source (MDI 7.8) is 55% in Ulaanbaatar, during the first quarter of 2010 form a 66% in aimag centers and 22% in rural sub-sample of the Socioeconomic Survey areas, yielding a weighted average of 45% (SES), a very detailed survey focusing on for Mongolia. Including water vendors, the consumption of goods and services by these proportions are 96%, 78%, 23% households (NSO and World Bank, 2009). and 64% respectively. The proportion of This allows for the analysis of the results of the population with access to an improved these two surveys in an integrated manner. sanitation (MDI 7.9) is 85% in Ulaanbaatar, 81% in aimag centers and 10% in rural Although the survey addresses other areas, yielding a weighted average of 55% issues as well, it pays special attention to for Mongolia. Finally, the proportion of the the Millennium Development Indicators ix Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia population using solid fuels (a former MDI improving access to drinking water and of and the only indicator on air pollution based 41,473 Tg per year for improving sanitation on household data) is 37% in Ulaanbaatar, (all values refer to a five years period). This 71% in other aimag centers and 99% in clearly shows that air pollution reduces rural areas, yielding a weighted average of welfare more significantly in Ulaanbaatar 69% for Mongolia. than the other two issues investigated (the comparable figure for air pollution The three issues covered in the MDIs are is 328,256 Tg). In urban areas outside further investigated using a contingent of Ulaanbaatar, the mean for improving valuation approach for air pollution in access to drinking water is 47,698 Tg per Ulaanbaatar and a conjoint analysis year and household and 36,033 Tg for approach for access to drinking water and improving sanitation. Finally, in rural areas sanitation. This allows estimating how much the results show a value of 52,252 Tg per Mongolians are willing to pay to improve year and household for improving access the situation. Focusing on the willingness to to drinking water and of 8,816 Tg per year pay for improving air quality in Ulaanbaatar, for improving sanitation. That is, in all areas the preferred model reported shows that households are more willing to pay to households in Ulaanbaaatar would be improve access to drinking water, although willing to pay on average 328,256 Tg per this is more evident in rural areas. household and year during five years for a clean-up program that would reduce the Another section is devoted to wildlife concentration of particulate matters about hunting, fishing and wild nuts and fruits 20%. Even the most conservative estimate gathering, while another focuses on offered yields a still significant value of energy consumption. Both complete 116,890 Tg per household and year (this is and complement the information on a very conservative estimate since 83% of consumption estimated in the SES the respondents declared that they would (NSO and World Bank, 2009), providing be willing to pay 150,000 Tg per household much needed detail. The results show, and year). For the overall population of for example, that marmots and gazelles Ulaanbaatar, these values per household have been consumed by about 4% of the would yield a total of about 87 and 32 billion population in the last twelve months or that Tg per year, respectively. These values the consumption of wild fruits and nuts is a are extremely high and they are probably common practice in Mongolia. explained by the fact that air pollution is such The next section presents perception and a big problem that almost no respondent opinions of herders on issues such as was willing to say no to a clean-up project the number of animals in Mongolia or the regardless of the (hypothetical) cost. In best way to manage animal movements. fact, the magnitude of the figures obtained Although most herders perceive that the probably deserves further investigation in a numbers of animals are increasing, only survey focused exclusively on air pollution. 31% consider that something needs to be In the last section of this report alternatives done to reduce the animals in their soum. to improve the current estimates are The preferred way to reduce the number of discussed in more detail. animals is to limit the number of animals For improvements in the access to drinking that a person can own (53%) followed by water and in sanitation, the results of what is essentially a permit market for the the preferred model show that the mean right to own animals (an option favored by willingness to pay per household in 29% of the sample). Another relevant result Ulaanbaatar is of 60,710 Tg per year for is that about half of the sample considers x Executive summary that it is not necessary to reduce the long- The final section shows results on term movements of animals into their perceptions and opinions regarding soum, while the other half considers that nature and the environment. The following something should be done. The preferred statements summarize some of the results alternative is similar to the one favored obtained. Mongolians perceive a clear about the number of animals, that is, to allow reduction in the respect for nature and the access only to herders with a small number environment and are particularly concerned of animals. The more market oriented about the apparent lack of respect shown alternative (setting a fee) is preferred in by politicians. Community groups are this case by 43% of the sample. However, seen as a good way to manage natural to interpret the results in this section it is resources, but privatization is not favored. important to take into account that the Significantly, the majority of Mongolians are interviews were done precisely during the willing to give up hunting/eating marmots, last dzud (first quarter of 2010), since this deer and other animals to allow them to event had probably a big impact on the recover, and stopping commercial trade is answers given. expected to have a positive impact on wild animals. Reforestation activities are clearly favored but people tend to accept felling trees to collect their nuts. xi Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia xii 1. Introduction M ongolia has very significant efforts in Mongolia, such as the physical natural resources and a environmental statistics, which provide large part of the population is data on the levels of different pollutants or dependent on them for their on the land covered by forests (NSO, et daily living. The impact of al. 2002), and the Socioeconomic Survey the state of the environment (SES), a very detailed survey focusing on on the living standards of herders is the consumption of goods and services by obvious, but also Mongolians living in the households2 (NSO and World Bank, 2009). capital Ulaanbaatar have learned that air pollution, especially in winter, and other After reporting what Mongolians deem the environmental problems have a deep most important environmental issues in their impact on their living standards. cities/soums and in Mongolia, this report calculates the Millennium Development The Government of the Netherlands has Indicators (MDIs) related to air pollution, established a Trust Fund at the World Bank to access to drinking water and sanitation. support environmental activities in Mongolia It also reports additional perceptions of (Netherlands-Mongolia Trust Fund for the population on these environmental Environmental Reform 2, NEMO21). Under issues and on waste management. Then, this framework, the World Bank contracted the three issues covered in the MDIs are the first Environment and Natural Resource further investigated in quantitative terms, Management Socio-economic Survey using a contingent valuation approach for for Mongolia (ENRMSS) to the National air pollution in Ulaanbaatar and a conjoint Statistical Office and an international analysis method for access to drinking consultant, Alejandro Caparrós. The aim water and sanitation (a description of these of this survey is to investigate public views methods can be found in Appendix B). This on environmental issues and to measure allows estimating how much Mongolians the impact of environmental problems on are willing to pay to improve the situation of human welfare, measured in economic these issues. terms. This completes previous statistical 1 www.worldbank.org/nemo 2 This survey integrates what is known in other countries as a Household Income and Expenditure Survey and a Living Standards Measurement Survey (Grosh and Glewwe, 2000). 1 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia The first part of section 5 is devoted to Section 6 presents perception and opinions wildlife hunting, fishing and wild nuts and of herders on issues such as the number fruits gathering, while the second part of this of animals in Mongolia or the best way section focuses on energy consumption. to manage animal movements. Finally, Both complete and complement the Section 7 shows results on perceptions and information on consumption estimated in opinions of Mongolians regarding Nature the SES (NSO and World Bank, 2009). and the Environment. 2 2. Main environmental problems T he first questions in the survey most important environmental issue to reported here asked respondents be addressed in Mongolia. In the same which environmental problems direction, the proportion of households they deemed more important in considering air pollution to be the most their city/soum and in Mongolia. pressing issue in Mongolia is larger in Table 2.1 and 2.2 show the Aimag centers than in Ulaanbaatar. results obtained. As Table 2.1 shows, air After air pollution, desertification is most pollution is clearly the most important frequently considered to be the most environmental issue in Ulaanbaatar; poor important issue at the national level (with garbage collection and air pollution are the slightly larger proportions of the population main concerns in other urban areas (aimag considering this the most important issue centers); and over-grazing and access in Ulaanbaatar than in the rest of the areas to drinking water are the most relevant investigated). On the contrary, access to issues in rural areas. At the country level, drinking water and over-grazing are more air pollution is the main priority (Table 2.2). frequently considered the most important Somehow surprisingly, even households issue in rural areas. in rural areas consider air pollution as the Table 2.1 Environmental priorities for Mongolian households at local level (percentages) Most important issue to address in Second most important issue to Issue CITY/SOUM address in CITY/SOUM Ulaan- Aimag Ulaan- Aimag Rural National Rural National baatar centers1 baatar centers1 Air pollution 80.2 17.4 2.4 35.6 10.2 8.0 1.1 6.2 Poor garbage and solid 9.6 23.8 2.1 10.0 45.2 18.7 3.5 23.0 waste collection Access to 3.3 15.7 25.8 14.8 11.7 14.5 17.3 14.5 drinking water Over-grazing 0.1 9.2 34.0 15.3 0.7 15.5 31.1 15.8 1 Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 3 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Desertification 0.5 16.0 25.0 13.6 3.1 14.9 21.2 12.8 Loss of wildlife 0.7 5.2 3.2 2.7 3.4 7.4 9.1 6.5 Deforestation 0.3 4.7 2.9 2.3 1.5 7.6 9.8 6.1 Poor disposal of household 2.9 2.7 0.5 1.9 12.6 4.7 0.5 6.1 waste water Forest and 0.7 2.1 1.0 1.1 1.7 3.6 2.1 2.3 land fires Improper disposal of 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.0 2.7 2.1 1.8 2.2 mining wastes Encroachment on protected 0.0 1.3 1.6 0.9 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.6 areas Too much 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 5.0 0.7 0.3 2.2 noise Others2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 Others included those issues that did not account for more than 1.0% of the total. These issues were “Bad city roads”, “Composition of the national herd”, “Dog litter”, “Fishing”, “Grasshopper mice”, “Hydrargum”, “Illegal hunting”, “Ironworks”, “Land use”, “Mining holes”, “Pasture damage”, “Plastic bags”, “Replanting of forest” and “Tree damage by insects”. The “Mongolia: State of the Environment” 2001): land degradation, desertification, (SoE) report developed by the Ministry of deforestation, loss of biodiversity and Nature and Environment (MNE) of Mongolia urban air pollution. Although not in that and the United Nations Environment order, the results shown above suggest Program (UNEP) identified five priority that most of these issues are also relevant environmental issues in Mongolia (UNEP, to the population. 4 Main environmental problems Table 2.2 Environmental priorities for Mongolian households at country level (percentages) Most important issue to address in Second most important issue to MONGOLIA address in MONGOLIA Issue Aimag Ulaan- Ulaan- Aimag centers Rural National Rural National baatar (1) baatar centers (1) Air pollution 32.8 43.2 29.8 34.1 4.9 12.8 8.0 7.9 Poor garbage and solid 3.3 4.0 2.9 3.3 8.7 7.4 6.3 7.5 waste collection Access to 5.7 7.4 13.9 9.3 9.7 12.6 12.0 11.3 drinking water Over-grazing 4.1 5.4 12.3 7.6 7.8 11.1 15.1 11.4 Desertification 25.3 18.1 21.5 22.2 21.7 21.5 24.5 22.7 Loss of wildlife 9.7 7.7 6.3 7.9 9.5 9.6 8.0 9.0 Deforestation 6.0 5.8 4.3 5.3 12.2 7.7 10.4 10.5 Poor disposal of household 2.4 1.1 1.1 1.6 2.8 2.3 1.3 2.1 waste water Forest and 3.2 2.2 0.8 2.0 10.5 5.5 3.4 6.6 land fires Improper disposal of 3.4 2.6 3.4 3.2 5.6 4.7 6.6 5.7 mining wastes Encroachment on protected 3.7 2.0 3.5 3.2 3.7 3.8 2.9 3.4 areas Too much 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.7 1.1 1.3 noise Others (2) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 2 Others included those issues that did not account for more than 1.0% of the total. These issues were “Bad city roads”, “Composition of the national herd”, “Dog litter”, “Fishing”, “Grasshopper mice”, “Hydrargum”, “Illegal hunting”, “Ironworks”, “Land use”, “Mining holes”, “Pasture damage”, “Plastic bags”, “Replanting of forest” and “Tree damage by insects”. 5 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 6 3. Millennium Development Indicators and other relevant indicators O ne of the primary goals of air pollution in Ulaanbaatar this reports the ENRMSS is to provide estimates this indicator. the necessary information to The definition of the Millennium Development calculate those Millennium Indicator was “The proportion of population Development Indicators for which using solid fuels is the proportion of the a Household survey is the most adequate population that relies on biomass (wood, source. The three indicators identified are: charcoal, crop residues and dung) and coal the proportion of the population using solid as the primary source of domestic energy fuels, the proportion of the population with for cooking and heating” (UN, 2003). Table sustainable access to an improved water 3.1 shows the use of each one of these source and the proportion of the population sources and the value of the former MDI. with access to an improved sanitation. In Appendix C, the confidence intervals The next subsections give the definitions for these estimations can be found for the of each one of these indicators and the national sample (Table C.2.1) as well as results obtained. the results for the following sub-samples: Ulaanbaatar (Table C.2.2), aimag centers 3.1. Use of solid fuels (former excluding Ulaanbaatar (Table C.2.3), urban Millennium Development Indicator) areas (Table C.2.4) and rural areas (Table Two of the Millennium Development C.2.5). Indicators discussed in UN (2003) are In addition to the willingness to pay directly related to the energy sources questions reported in section four, used by the households (Carbon dioxide additional indicators on air pollution and emissions per capita and Proportion of the on the perception of air pollution problems, population using solid fuels). Household focused on the Ulaanbaatar sub-sample, surveys are not a good source to obtain can be found in Tables C.2.6 to C.2.8 in information on carbon dioxide emissions, Appendix C. but they are the best option available to obtain information on the use of solid fuels 3.2. Access to drinking water (UN, 2003). The updated list of MDIs has (Millennium Developement Indicator excluded the one related to the use of 7.8) solid fuels3, but given the importance of Another one of the Millennium Development Indicators (UN, 2003) directly relates to the access to drinking water (Indicator 7.8 - 3 Proportion of population using an improved http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Host. aspx?Content=Indicators/OfficialList.htm drinking water source). The definitions is as 7 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia follows: “The proportion of the population centers excluding Ulaanbaatar, urban with sustainable access to an improved areas and rural areas (Table C.7.1). water source, urban and rural, is the As shown in Batbold et al. (2004), previous percentage of the population who use any sources of information yielded different of the following types of water supply for results regarding access to drinking water drinking: piped water, public tap, borehole in Mongolia (ranging from 45% to 72% of or pump, protected well, protected spring the population). For the year 2005, the or rainwater. Improved water sources do Mongolian Statistical Yearbook (NSO, not include vendor-provided water, bottled 2008) reported a value of 72%. The water, tanker trucks or unprotected wells differences with the values shown here are and springs” (UN, 2003). Since the UN probably due to the fact that the definitions recommends using household surveys used in previous estimations differ greatly to obtain information about the access to from the internationally accepted standards improved water sources, the ENRMSS (Batbold et al., 2004). included questions to estimate this indicator. Table 3.2 shows the basic information used In addition to the willingness to pay to estimate this indicator and the value of questions reported in section four, the MDI for Mongolia. In Appendix C, the additional indicators on access to drinking confidence intervals for these estimations water can be found in Tables C.7.2 to C.7.6 can be found, as well as the results for the in Appendix C. following sub-samples: Ulaanbaatar, aimag 8 Millennium Development Indicators and other relevant indicators Table 3.1 Sources of energy used by households for heating and cooking in Mongolia (percentages) Most frequently used for heating (1) Most frequently used for cooking (2) Source of Urban Urban energy Natio- Ulaan- Aimag Total Rural Total Rural Natio- nal Ulaan- Aimag baatar centers(3) urban baatar centers urban (3) nal Electricity 2.5 3.1 2.7 0.2 1.7 60.0 25.8 47.1 0.6 29.2 Firewood 22.7 42.0 30.0 28.5 29.4 16.6 44.7 27.3 28.2 27.6 Coal 35.8 25.6 31.9 1.9 20.4 20.6 12.6 17.6 0.5 11.0 Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 Dung/ compacted 0.1 13.0 5.0 68.9 29.6 0.1 14.1 5.4 69.9 30.2 dung Charcoal 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 (1) For the Ulaanbaatar sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 36.9% and “Coal” accounts for 19.8%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 2.2% and “Coal” accounts for 1.3%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). For the Aimag centers sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 23.6%, “Coal” accounts for 20.1% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 12.1%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 1.7%, “Firewood” accounts for 2.2%, “Coal” accounts for 4.4% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 6.3%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). For the Rural sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 15.4%, “Coal” accounts for 8.2%, “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 16.0% and “Others” accounts for 1.3; as third most frequently used, “Firewood” accounts for 1.1%, “Coal” accounts for 3.2% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 1.4%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). For the National results, as second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 26.1%, “Coal” accounts for 15.6% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 8.6%; as third most frequently used, “Electricity” accounts for 1.6%, “Coal” accounts for 2.7% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 2.1%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (2) For the Ulaanbaatar sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 6.7%, “Firewood” accounts for 34.9%, “Coal” accounts for 16.3% and “Gas” accounts for 1.0%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 21.3%, “Firewood” accounts for 4.4% and “Coal” accounts for 15.5%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). For the Aimag centers sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 16.6%, “Firewood” accounts for 16.3%, “Coal” accounts for 21.1% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 10.4%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 14.8%, “Firewood” accounts for 3.6%, “Coal” accounts for 9.6% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 6.1%; as fourth most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 3.2% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 1.9%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second, third or fourth most frequently used). For the Rural sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 15.9%, “Coal” accounts for 6.6%, “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 15.2%, and “Others” accounts for 1.0%; as third most frequently used, “Coal” accounts for 4.0%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). For the National results, as second most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 6.7%, “Firewood” accounts for 23.8%, “Coal” accounts for 13.8% and “Dung/ compacted dung” accounts for 8.0%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 12.3%, “Firewood” accounts for 2.8%, “Coal” accounts for 10.0% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 1.6%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (3) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 9 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Recycled 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 materials Solar panels 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 turbines Others 35.4 13.0 26.9 0.0 16.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 Do not use/ did not score as 3.4 3.3 3.4 0.2 2.1 1.3 1.8 1.5 0.2 1.0 frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Proportion of the households using solid 37.3 71.2 50.2 98.7 68.9 fuels – Former MDI(4) (4) Former Millennium Development Indicator (not in the official list after 2008)– This indicator shows the proportion of the households using firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung and charcoal as the primary source of domestic energy for cooking and heating. This implies calculating the number of households that stated that their primary source of energy was any of the previous (firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung or charcoal) both for the heating and for the cooking activities and not just for one of them. 10 Millennium Development Indicators and other relevant indicators Table 3.2 Sources of water supply used by households for drinking in Mongolia (percentages) Most frequently used for drinking (1) Source of water supply Urban Ulaan- Aimag Total Rural National baatar centers (2) urban Centralized: hot/cold water pipe 38.5 15.7 29.9 0.2 18.4 Public tap (3) 4.8 7.5 5.8 0.3 3.7 Protected well (4) 11.1 41.0 22.5 20.2 21.6 Protected spring (5) 0.1 2.2 0.9 1.6 1.2 Bottled water 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vendor provided water (6) 41.7 11.8 30.3 0.3 18.8 Unprotected well & spring 1.4 6.8 3.5 42.1 18.4 Tanker trucks (7) 2.1 9.2 4.8 0.2 3.0 River, pond or snow/ice water 0.1 3.9 1.5 21.0 9.0 Other (non-specified) (8) 0.0 1.0 0.4 13.5 5.4 Do not use/did not score 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Proportion of the population with sustainable access to an improved water source – MDI 54.6 66.5 59.1 22.3 44.9 7.8 (9) Proportion of the population with sustainable access to an improved water source 96.3 78.3 89.5 22.6 63.7 (including vendor provided water) (10) (1) For the Ulaanbaatar sub-sample, no source of water supply accounts for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. For the Aimag centers sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 1.2% and “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 2.5%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. For the Rural sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Protected well” accounts for 1.4%, “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 3.4%, “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 15.1% and “Others (non-specified)” accounts for 5.0%; as third most frequently used “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 1.8% and “Others (non-specified)” accounts for 1.0%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second or third most frequently used. For the National results, as second most frequently used “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 1.5%, “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 6.1% and “Others (non-specified)” accounts for 2.0%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. (2) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (3) Water vending kiosk connected to central pipeline. (4) Well with fencing around 10 m, concrete protection with insulated lid preventing water contamination. (5) Spring discharging water into the tap, thus preventing open access to the water source by humans or animals. (6) Private vendors, water distribution kiosks not connected to central pipeline. (7) Truck delivered water. (8) For this question, respondents were not asked to specify the “other” sources of water supply for drinking. (9) Millennium Development Indicator 7.8 - This indicator is calculated taking into account the proportion of the households using any of the following types of water supply for drinking: centralized hot/cold water pipe, public tap, protected well and protected spring. (10) This indicator includes the water sources included in the MDI 7.8 (see previous footnote) plus vendor provided water. 11 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 3.3. Sanitation (Millennium excluding Ulaanbaatar, urban areas and Development Indicator 7.9) rural areas (Table C.8.1). Access to sanitation is another relevant As it was the case for drinking water, issue in Mongolia (JERM, 2006), as well the figure published in NSO’s Statistical as one of the indicators included in the Yearbook for 2005 (77% of the population Millennium Development Goals (Indicator with access to improve sanitation) was 7.9- Proportion of population using an higher than other estimates (Batbold et al., improved sanitation facility). The definition 2004) and higher than the results reported of this indicator in UN (2003) is “the here at the national level (although lower proportion of the urban and rural population than the results obtained in urban areas). with access to improved sanitation refers In addition to the willingness to pay to the percentage of the population with questions reported in section 4, additional access to facilities that hygienically separate indicators on sanitation can be found in human excreta from human, animal and Tables C.8.2 to C.8.5 in Appendix C. insect contact. Facilities such as sewers or septic tanks, poor-flush latrines and simple 3.4. Solid waste pit or ventilated improved pit latrines are assumed to be adequate, provided that Although not included in any MDI, solid they are not public, according to the World waste management is a relevant problem Health Organization and United Nations in Mongolia according to Tables 2.1 Children’s Fund’s Global Water Supply and 2.2. Table 3.4 shows the data on and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. solid waste gathered in the ENRMSSS To be effective, facilities must be correctly for Mongolia. The confidence intervals constructed and properly maintained.” for these estimations can be found in Appendix C, together with the results for Table 3.3 shows the basic information used the following sub-samples: Ulaanbaatar, to estimate this indicator and the value aimag centers excluding Ulaanbaatar and of the MDI for Mongolia. The confidence rural areas (Table C.8.6). Tables C.8.2 to intervals for these estimations can be found C.8.5 in Appendix C, already mentioned in Table C.8.1 in Appendix C. The same in the previous sub-section, also provide table shows the results for the following information on additional indicators about sub-samples: Ulaanbaatar, aimag centers solid waste. 12 Millennium Development Indicators and other relevant indicators Table 3.3 Sanitation and waste management and facilities in Mongolian households (percentages) Urban Class Aimag centers Total Rural National Ulaanbaatar (1) urban Type of toilet/latrine used as main sanitation facility by 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mongolian households Inside of household 37.8 15.7 29.4 0.3 18.2 Outside of household 60.8 79.1 67.8 28.5 52.6 Public or shared 1.3 4.0 2.3 0.3 1.5 None, we relieve ourselves 0.1 1.2 0.5 70.8 27.6 outside Places where wastes from toilet/latrine are discharged 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 by Mongolian households Sewer system 37.4 15.4 29.1 0.2 17.9 Own and small sewer system 1.5 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.7 Simple hole (pit latrine) 45.6 65.2 53.1 9.9 36.4 Outside/land 8.8 12.3 10.2 18.6 13.4 Do not discharge wastes 2.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.9 It is buried 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 Canal 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Toilet/latrine (2) 2.6 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 Do not use own toilet/latrine 1.4 5.1 2.8 71.2 29.2 Proportion of the population with access to an improved 84.6 80.9 83.2 10.3 55.1 sanitation - MDI 7.9 (3) (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) This answer is redundant but has been included in the table to describe all the answers given to the question by the respondents. (3) Millennium Development Indicator 7.9 - This indicator is calculated taking into account the proportion of the households with access to facilities such as sewer systems, own and small sewer systems, and simple hole (pit latrine). 13 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table 3.4 Waste management characteristics in Mongolian households Class Ulaanbaatar Aimag centers (1) Rural National Mean Mean Mean Mean Percentage of solid waste type produced by household every week % paper 9.2 6.2 1.1 5.4 % textiles 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 % plastics 5.6 2.8 0.6 3.0 % glass 2.6 1.6 0.4 1.5 % can and metals 2.1 1.1 0.2 1.1 % food recycle 31.6 20.3 7.8 19.8 % ash 39.8 56.1 79.2 58.8 % other 7.9 11.1 9.5 9.3 Times solid waste is collected in the month for the household 3.5 3.0 2.1 2.8 (mean) Times solid waste is collected in the year for the household 3.7 8.4 5.1 5.3 (mean) Amount paid by the household per time that their solid waste 2.0 4.3 3.6 3.2 is collected (mean thousand Tugrugs) Amount paid by the household per month for solid waste 2.3 2.1 1.7 2.0 collection (mean thousand Tugrugs) (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 14 4. Willingness to pay to improve environmental issues T he three MDI described in the in contingent valuation to ask them if they previous section refer essentially are willing to pay more than a fixed quantity to air pollution, access to drinking x (Bateman et al., 2004). To estimate water and sanitation. These the maximum willingness to pay of the issues are included in the MDIs population it is necessary to ask different because they are important amounts to different interviewees, so that indicators to monitor the environmental a split-sample design is necessary. This situation of developing countries. Tables complicates the design and the analysis but 2.1 and 2.2 confirm the relevance of these this method has proven to be far better than indicators in Mongolia, both locally and the direct question. The main reasons are at the national level. To investigate these (Whittington, 2000a) that the effort required issues further, the ENRMSS included two from the interviewee is far less, that the sections devoted to measuring the impact scenario presented is closer to a real market of environmental “bads” on the well-being (a take it or leave it offer) and that this way of the population. To compare the negative of asking is more incentive compatible impact of, for example, air pollution to (the way in which the interviewee could other goods and services a dollar-value manipulate the results of the survey is less (or a tugrog-value) has to be estimated obvious). The main drawback, especially for this environmental “bad”. Given that in developing countries, is that the amount the information needed to do any analysis asked is sometimes completely out of reach based on revealed preferences is difficult of the household. or even impossible to obtain, the ENRMSS An alternative approach is conjoint analysis, resorts to stated preferences methods, which implies offering interviewees different such as the contingent valuation method alternatives from which to choose one or conjoint analysis (previous applications (Louviere et al. (2000) or Caparrós et al in developing countries can be found in (2008)). Again, the alternatives to choose Whittington (1998; 2000a; 2000b) and from have to vary across subjects, so that a previous application in Ulaanbaatar is a split-sample design is needed. The main reported in ICT (2003)). advantage of this approach, especially for Basically, these methods boil down to developing countries, is that by presenting asking people how much they are willing to the households with different alternatives pay for the improvement of, e.g., air quality. the main problem highlighted above for However, instead of directly asking them to the contingent valuation method is less state the amount of tugrogs that they would prevalent. Another advantage is that it is be willing to pay, it is a standard practice possible to estimate the impact of different 15 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia programs of a particular environmental 4.1 Air pollution in Ulaanbaatar (contin- policy on the well-being of the population. gent valuation) The ENRMSS included one contingent After a relatively long introduction that valuation question devoted to air pollution described in detail an air pollution clean-up only for the sub-sample in Ulaanbaatar and plan in Ulaanbaatar which, if completed, a choice experiment (a form of conjoint would reduce the concentration of analysis) that simultaneously addressed particulate matters by approximately 20 access to drinking water and sanitation to percent in five years (see Appendix D), the entire sample. Appendix B describes respondents were asked to answer the these techniques in more detail, as well as following question: “If this air pollution the particular applications included in the clean-up plan costs households like yours ENRMSS (the format of the questions used X Tugrugs per year (during five years), can be found in Appendix D). would you vote for the plan or against it?”. Table 4.1 reports the responses obtained for the four bid values offered to different sub-samples. Table 4.1 Single dichotomous contingent valuation questions for air pollution reduction in Ulaanbaatar Valid answers Invalid answers Answers as given N Yes No n Do not know Protest “no” Vote for the plan? 691 87 778 96 42 916 Type 1 (bid 10,000 Tugrugs) 183 15 198 17 10 225 Type 2 (bid 20,000 Tugrugs) 180 19 199 18 11 228 Type 3 (bid 50,000 Tugrugs) 174 21 195 29 8 232 Type 4 (bid 150,000 Tugrugs) 154 32 186 32 13 231 During the pre-test phase respondents were be 126,494 Tg in 2007/2008). Nevertheless, asked about the maximum that they would the results reported in Table 4.1 show that a pay for the plan. The open-ended question significant share of the respondents (83%) yielded a mean of 17.290 Tg. Since the were finally willing to pay even the highest take it or leave it offers proposed in the pre- bid offered. This shows the importance test showed that this value was relatively attached by Ulaanbaatar residents to the low, the final version of the questionnaire air pollution problem in the city. included bids up to 150,000 Tg. This was Table 4.2 shows the willingness to pay considered a relatively high value since it is estimate and the willingness to pay functions about 2.5 times the poverty line determined estimated using the techniques described in NSO and WB (2009) and more than in Appendix B. For the preferred model the monthly consumption in Ulaanbaatar (RSPDE), the mean is equal to 328,256 Tg according to the same source (estimated to per household and year (see Appendix B.1 16 Willingness to pay to improve environmental issues for a justification of this choice) and for the Appendix B.3) a surprisingly high number version without explanatory variables of of respondents stated that they would pay this model (RSPD) the mean is 285,621 (all the amount offered. This probably implies values per year shown refer to a five years that air pollution was so important to them period). These non-truncated values are that they simply did not want to say no the most adequate ones from an economic to any measure that would improve air point of view (see Hanneman (1984) for a pollution (especially considering that the discussion), but since the means obtained payment was hypothetical). This may imply are significantly larger than the highest lexicographic preferences but may also bid offered, Table 4.2 also offers a value simply be a strategic answer considering truncating the distribution at 150,000 Tg (for the relevance of the issue to them and the the model without explanatory variables). hypothetical nature of the payment. Section This value of 116,890 Tg per household and 8 shows some recommendation on how to year can be seen as a very conservative improve these results in future surveys. measure of the average willingness to pay The additional results on the perception of the residents of Ulaanbaatar to reduce the of the severity of the air pollution problem air pollution in the city (this value only takes in Ulaanbaatar shown in Tables C.2.6 into account the area under the probability to C.2.8 in Appendix C further illustrate distribution function to the left of 150,000 the importance of this problem. Finally, Tg). Table 4.3 shows the aggregated Table C.2.9 shows the values estimated willingness to pay values for the whole using the open-ended willingness to pay population of Ulaanbaatar. As it can be questions and Table C.2.10 shows whether seen, the values obtained are large, even respondents found it difficult to answer with the most conservative estimate. The the willingness to pay questions and their reason is that, although significant efforts degree of confidence in the answer given. were done to pre-test the scenario (see 17 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table 4.2 Willingness to pay function for the single dichotomous logit models for air pollution reduction in Ulaanbaatar Model without SD Model (1) SDP Model (2) RSD Model (3) RSDP Model (4) explanatory variables Mean Willingness to pay 397,329.32*** 414,752.52*** 272,005.63*** 285,621.37*** (Tugrugs/year during five years) (115,040.00) (117,279.16) (58,826.27) (55,269.89) Truncated mean willingness to pay(9) 124,730 131,770 109,060 116,890 (Tugrugs/year during five years) Model with explanatory SDE Model (5) SDPE Model (6) RSDE Model (7) RSDPE Model (8) variables Intercept 278,113.88*** 292.082.07*** 86,809.71 92,712.70* (92,180.90) (93,000.02) (56,726.83) (49,391.52) Income (10) 0.53* 0.52* 0.62** 0.69** (0.30) (0.29) (0.31) (0.28) Difficulty (11) 179,159.08** 160,176.63*** (72,751.23) (59,605.86) Mean Willingness to pay 394,378.73*** 408,361.48*** 318,325.53*** 328,256.09*** (Tugrugs per year during five years) (12) (112,545.31) (112,441.07) (87,083.25) (77,488.78) Note: The presented willingness to pay functions respond to the best logit models (see Appendix B). We do not include correlated and non-significant (< 10%) explanatory variables. Standard deviations are shown in brackets. Asterisks (e.g.,*,**,***) denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively. (1) The SD model is single-dichotomous and includes all valid answers (as given by the respondents). (2) The SDP model is single-dichotomous and includes all valid answers (as given by the respondents) minus protest responses. (3) The RSD model is single-dichotomous and include all valid answers (recoded based on the open-ended question). (4) The RSDP model is single-dichotomous and includes all valid answers (recoded based on the open-ended question) minus protest responses. (5) The SDE model is single-dichotomous with explanatory variables and includes all valid answers (as given by the respondents). (6) The SDPE model is single-dichotomous with explanatory variables and includes all valid answers (as given by the respondents) minus protest responses. (7) The RSDE model is single-dichotomous with explanatory variables and include all valid answers (recoded based on the open-ended question). (8) The RSDPE model is single-dichotomous with explanatory variables and includes all valid answers (recoded based on the open-ended question) minus protest responses. (9) Truncated at 150,000 Tugrugs (highest bid offered in the single-dichotomous question). (10) Household total monthly net income. (11) =1 if respondent disagreed or totally disagreed that deciding his/her answer was difficult. (12) Defined at average values of explanatory variables. 18 Willingness to pay to improve environmental issues Table 4.3 Aggregated willingness to pay values for the air pollution reduction program in Ulaanbaatar. Results from the preferred models Willingness to pay for the Ulaanbaatar household Model without explanatory variables (1) population (Tugrugs/year during five years) RSDP Model (non-truncated) 78,031,758,284 RSDP Model (truncated) (2) 31,934,348,000 Model with explanatory variables (3) RSDPE Model 86,679,563,788 (1) The RSDP model is single-dichotomous and includes all valid answers (recoded based on the open-ended question) minus protest responses. (2) Truncated at 150,000 Tugrugs (highest bid offered in the single-dichotomous question). (3) The RSDPE model is single-dichotomous with explanatory variables and includes all valid answers (recoded based on the open-ended question) minus protest responses. 4.2 Drinking water and sanitation Appendix B.2 for a justification), the mean (choice experiment) willingness to pay per household in rural Access to drinking water and sanitation areas is 52,252 Tg per year for improving are two additional issues that concern the access to drinking water and 8,816 Tg Mongolians as Tables 2.1 and 2.2 have per year for improving sanitation (all values already shown, although the former seem per year shown refer to a five years period). to be more important according to the This confirms the qualitative results shown information in these tables. To investigate in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 that access to drinking quantitatively the willingness to pay water is more important in these areas. The to improve these issues the ENRMSS additional advantage of the figures reported conducted a choice experiment. A detailed in this section is that they allow evaluating description of this technique and of the the relative importance of these two issues. application in the ENRMSS can be found In urban areas outside of Ulaanbaatar, in Appendix B. After an introduction the mean for improving access to drinking that described the two programs under water is 47,698 Tg and for improving consideration (see Appendix D) respondents sanitation 36,033 Tg. Aggregated values were faced with the choice exemplified in for the population of Mongolia can be found Figure 4.1 (different respondents faced in Table 4.5 (only for the preferred models). different combinations of programs and tax Table C.9.1 in Appendix C shows whether increases). respondents found it difficult to answer these questions, their degree of confidence Table 4.4 shows the willingness to pay in the answer given and two questions values estimated for several models. For about their understanding of the scenario. the preferred model (NLC models, see 19 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Improvement plans Code A1 Drinking water YES NO NO improvement plan In 5 years 9 out Current situation Current situation of 10 Mongolians continues for 5 continues for 5 have access to an more years (7 out more years (7 out improved drinking of 10 Mongolians of 10 Mongolians water source have access to an have access to an improved drinking improved drinking water source) water source) Sanitation NO YES NO improvement plan Current situation In 5 years 7 out Current situation continues for 5 of 10 Mongolians continues for 5 more years (5 out have access to an more years (5 out of 10 Mongolians improved sanitation of 10 Mongolians have access to an system have access to an improved sanitation improved sanitation system) system) Additional taxes for your 50,000 Tg 35,000 Tg No additional taxes household per YEAR per YEAR during 5 years during 5 years Mark ONLY ONE Option A Option B Option C OPTION (A, B or C) Figure 4.1. Example of a choice experiment on drinking water and sanitation improvement plans To be able to compare the values for these household and a mean of 41,471 Tg for two plans to the estimations reported in improving sanitation. Since these are non- the last subsection for air pollution it is truncated values, the comparable figure necessary to focus on the willingness to for air pollution is 328,256 Tg. This clearly pay of the Ulaanbaatar sub-sample. For shows that air pollution reduces welfare the preferred model (NLCUB), Table 4.4 more significantly in Ulaanbaatar than the shows a mean for improving the access other two issues investigated. to drinking of 60,710 Tg per year and 20 Willingness to pay to improve environmental issues Table 4.4 Willingness to pay function from the nested logit models of the drinking water and sanitation choice experiments Models without Ulaanbaatar Aimag centers (6) Rural explanatory variables (1) NLUB model NLAI model NLRU model Mean WTP for 126,234*** 65,704*** 86,504*** drinking water plan (38,534) (8,426) (14,298) 92,213*** 51,524*** 23,783*** Mean WTP for sanitation plan (28,877) (6,947) (5,816) Model with Ulaanbaatar Aimag centers (6) Rural explanatory variables (2) NLCUB NLIUB NLCAI NLIAI NLCRU NLIRU model model model model model model Drinking water plan Intercept 45,682*** 103,925** 15,150*** 41,288*** 15,469*** 85,928*** (14,603) (43,106) (4,696) (8,648) (4,323) (14,066) Respondent’s age -663** -851 (285) (534) Credibility (3) 67,586*** 46,160*** 58,852*** (13,483) (6,773) (7,429) Income (4) 2.32E-04** 1.10E-04*** (1.18E-04) (3.83E-05) Mean WTP for 60,710*** 67,041** 47,698*** 41,309*** 52,252*** 85,928*** drinking water plan (5) (9,470) (29,862) (4,652) (8,644) (4,584) (14,066) Sanitation plan Intercept 22,970 127,116*** 17,277** 14,943* -9,920** 8,444 (14,304) (42,344) (8,607) (7,813) (5,043) (8,649) Respondent’s age -695** -949* -360** (297) (556) (166) Credibility (3) 75,103*** 49,439*** 29,979*** (14,212) (6,940) (6,511) 21 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Income (4) 1.76E-04*** 1.16E-04** (4.20E-05) (5.79E-05) Mean WTP for 41,473 85,896*** 36,033*** 8,816*** 8,459 sanitation plan (5) (7,501) (25,337) (4,006) (3,428) (8,644) Note: The presented willingness to pay functions respond to the best choice experiments models (see Appendix B). We do not include correlated and non-significant (< 10%) explanatory variables. Standard deviations are shown in brackets. Asterisks (e.g.,*,**,***) denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively. WTP stands for “willingness to pay”. (1) NL stands for “nested logit model”. UB, AI and RU subscript stands for “Ulaanbaatar”·, “Urban” and “Rural” respectively. (2) NLC stands for “nested logit model with ‘credibility’ and ‘respondent’s age’ as explanatory variables”, while NLI stands for “nested logit model with ‘income’ and ‘respondent’s age’ as explanatory variables”. UB, AI and RU subscript stands for “Ulaanbaatar”·, “Urban” and “Rural” respectively. (3) =1 if respondent agreed or totally agreed that the plans were credible. (4) Household total monthly net income. (5) Defined at average values of explanatory variables. (6) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. Table 4.5 Mean and aggregated willingness to pay values for the Mongolia population (national results) Willingness to pay function from the nested logit models of the drinking water and sanitation choice experiments Models without explanatory National (mean) National (aggregated) variables (1) Mean willingness to pay Aggregated willingness to pay NL model drinking water plan 96,930 69,450,000,687 NL model for sanitation plan 51,365 36,802,952,296 National (mean) National (aggregated) Model with explanatory variables (2) Mean willingness to pay Aggregated willingness to pay NLC model for drinking water plan 54,452 39,015,134,538 NLI model for drinking water plan 72,718 52,102,748,512 NLC model for sanitation plan 24,096 17,264,453,127 NLI model for sanitation plan 33,637 24,100,931,824 NL stands for “nested logit model”. (1) NLC stands for “nested logit model with ‘credibility’ and ‘respondent’s age’ as explanatory (2) variables”, while NLI stands for “nested logit model with ‘income’ and ‘respondent’s age’ as explanatory variables”. UB, AI and RU subscript stands for “Ulaanbaatar”·, “Urban” and “Rural” respectively. 22 5. Completing and complementing the Socio- economic Survey (SES) 5.1. Wildlife hunting, fishing, and wild to C.5.18. For all sub-samples the last three fruits and nuts gathering tables disaggregate the information by the Wildlife hunting is illegal for a large number age of the respondent (generally the head of species in Mongolia, but poaching either of the household) and by income category. for food or for wildlife trade is significant About 9% of Mongolians consume (Wingard and Zahler, 2006). The current meat from wildlife and this proportion is version of the Socioeconomic Survey relatively stable among urban and rural (SES) obtains aggregated information on areas (7% in Ulaanbaatar and 10% in “game”, “fish”, “wild fruits” and “wild nuts” rural areas). Marmots and gazelles are consumed. The ENRMSS completes the most popular animals, probably this information by disaggregating this explaining the rapid decline of the former. consumption, showing the animals and Wild fish is also consumed by about 10% fruits/nuts consumed. For Mongolia, Table of Mongolian households, but the amount 5.1 shows the meat from wildlife hunting consumed is significantly smaller. Finally, consumed, Table 5.2 the amount of fish wild fruits and nuts are popular and, consumed and Table 5.3 the amount of wild somehow surprisingly, more urban than fruits and nuts. In Appendix C, the results rural households declare to consume them for Ulaanbaatar are shown in Tables C.5.1 (mainly due to the consumption of Sea- to C.5.6, for aimag centers in Tables C.5.7 buckthorn in Ulaanbaatar). to C.5.12 and for rural areas in Tables C.5.7 23 Table 5.1 Wildlife hunting gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. National results. 24 Average Mean consumption (unit) unit price Consumption during Consumption during the Total value (tugrugs) of during the past month for the unit the past 12 months: past month consumed meat during coming from: purchased Class % of quantities HHs Gifts Mean % of Own Past 12 Mean Total Mean Total Purchases or (Tugrug/ Past month HHs production months free kg) Marmot kg 4.2 6.3 738.2 0.1 2.3 4.0 - 2.3 - - n. a. n. a. Gazelle kg 3.9 40.1 4,426.3 0.5 15.2 218.8 3.4 14.8 3.5 2,563.6 11,347,177.6 560,929.3 Roe deer kg 0.4 25.1 297.2 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.7 - - 350.0 104,014.5 126.8 Red deer kg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Brown kg 0.1 6.3 17.9 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 bear Wild pig kg 0.6 27.3 441.9 0.2 1.3 6.2 0.4 1.3 - 1,906.5 842,461.0 11,900.2 Reindeer kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Saiga kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Antelope Wild goat kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Wild kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 sheep Wolf kg 0.5 2.2 28.8 0.1 2.6 4.4 - 1.9 0.7 - n. a. n. a. (1) Other kg 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia MEAT kg 9.1 23.4 5,950.9 0.8 10.3 233.8 3.4 9.9 3.9 - n. a. n. a. n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Table 5.1 Wildlife hunting gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. National results. Average unit price Mean consumption (unit) Consumption during Consumption during the for the Total value (tugrugs) of during the past month com- unit the past 12 months: past month pur- consumed fish during ing from: Class % of chased HHs quantities Mean % of To- Purchas- Gifts Own pro- Past 12 Mean Total Mean (Tugrug/ Past month HHs tal es or free duction months kg) White fish kg 7.5 4.6 982.4 1.2 1.3 44.7 1.3 1.6 1.0 2,309.9 2,269,122.5 103,147.3 Lenok kg 1.2 3.1 101.5 0.1 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 875.1 88,807.0 1,056.7 Taimen kg 0.3 2.7 23.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - 1,108.4 25,591.8 200.8 Hairuus kg 1.3 6.0 212.0 0.1 0.9 3.1 0.9 0.6 - 337.2 71,479.0 1,038.3 Pike kg 0.4 1.7 19.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 - - n. a. n. a. Purch kg 0.3 3.4 28.4 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Catfish kg 0.1 0.5 1.7 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Coregeneus kg 0.1 2.3 6.4 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 l. Pild kg 0.1 3.1 8.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Chepak kg 0.1 1.1 2.8 0.1 1.4 2.2 - 1.4 - - n. a. n. a. Sazan kg 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 (1) Other kg 0.9 2.1 49.6 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - 758.4 37,624.9 842.5 FISH kg 11.2 4.6 1,436.0 1.6 1.2 52.5 1.5 1.9 1.2 n. a. n. a. n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Completing and complementing the Socio-economic Survey 25 26 Table 5.3 Wild fruits and nuts gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. National results. Average unit Mean consumption (unit) Consumption during Consumption during price for the Total value (tugrugs) of con- during the past month com- unit the past 12 months: the past month purchased sumed fruits/nuts during ing from: Class % of quantities HHs Mean Pur- Gifts Own pro- Past 12 Mean Total % of HHs Mean Total (Tugrug/ Past month chases or free duction months kg) Cranberry kg 14.0 5.3 2,093.8 2.1 1.2 68.1 1.1 0.5 0.8 2,761.9 5,782,939.1 188,111.0 Blueberry kg 11.9 8.3 2,769.2 1.7 2.8 134.4 1.2 1.1 3.1 2,293.5 6,351,285.4 308,319.3 Sea-back- kg 33.5 3.3 3,143.9 9.0 1.8 444.1 1.8 1.4 1.9 4,759.4 14,963,222.8 2,113,824.9 horn Strawberry kg 6.3 3.5 622.0 0.5 1.0 13.6 0.8 0.5 0.8 2,154.4 1,339,992.2 29,261.8 Currant kg 6.0 3.0 500.5 0.1 0.5 1.8 0.5 - - 1,461.6 731,546.4 2,603.0 Blackcurrant kg 5.8 3.3 540.6 0.3 0.9 8.6 0.9 0.2 0.8 2,243.2 1,212,769.7 19,362.7 Dollogon kg 1.0 1.4 40.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 - - 1,073.4 43,176.4 129.6 Moil kg 4.2 2.9 344.0 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 762.6 262,338.6 789.8 Nokhoin h. kg 4.6 2.0 261.3 0.8 0.5 12.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 2,155.8 563,323.9 26,522.4 Toshloi kg 1.8 1.6 79.5 0.0 - 0.0 - - - 1,166.8 92,741.9 28.2 Pine nuts kg 7.1 8.2 1,630.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 - - 1,170.1 1,907,909.3 606.0 Mushrooms kg 4.7 1.0 130.4 0.6 0.3 4.7 0.3 - - 2,915.3 380,099.7 13,567.9 Choniin eleg kg 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.5 - - 583.4 352.2 140.9 Tehiin sheeg kg 0.1 1.3 4.2 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Ulaalzgana kg 0.1 2.9 10.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Wild leek kg 0.1 1.2 2.0 0.1 1.2 2.0 - - 1.2 - n. a. n. a. (1) Other kg 0.1 2.5 8.5 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 FRUIT/NUTS kg 47.8 9.1 12,181.4 11.0 2.2 691.6 2.1 1.2 1.9 n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Completing and complementing the Socio-economic Survey 5.2 Energy used for lighting and other activities (the equivalent information for heating and Although the SES already computes cooking was presented in section 3); Tables information on energy used, the ENRMSS C.6.3 to C.6.6 provide confidence intervals completes this information by further for the information in Table 5.4 and Table disaggregating the sources of fuel used C.6.7 disaggregates this information by for heating/lighting and cooking (Table 5.4) aimags; Tables C.6.8 to C.6.11 provide and by gathering information on the fuel confidence intervals for the information used for cars/trucks (Table 5.5). in Table 5.5; and finally Tables C.6.12 to In Appendix C, Table C.6.1 and C.6.2 C.6.15 show results on fuel collection provide information about the sources Table 5.4 Fuel used by the household for heating, cooking and lighting during the past month and the past 12 months Past month Past 12 months Class Aimag Na- Ulaan- Aimag Ulaan- Rural Rural National centers (1) tional baatar centers (1) baatar Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Electricity (unit: kw) 194.4 101.5 2.9 98.9 2,415.0 1,215.3 52.9 1,224.8 Firewood (unit: m3) 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 2.1 4.6 3.4 3.2 Coal (unit: tons) 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 2.5 1.8 0.3 1.5 Gas (unit: m ) 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 Dung (unit: kg) 1.3 91.8 529.6 226.0 6.2 717.6 4,646.3 1,960.3 Compacted dung 0.0 50.5 422.6 174.6 0.1 374.2 2,526.1 1,060.8 (unit: kg) Charcoal (unit: kg) 2.9 0.9 4.4 3.0 10.4 5.2 20.0 12.9 Sawdust (unit: kg) 3.6 3.3 0.0 2.1 21.4 14.1 0.0 11.4 “Yonton” fuel (unit: 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 10.7 0.0 0.0 4.1 liters) Crop residues (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 tons) Recycled tires (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 4.0 1.7 kg) Recycled plastics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 4.8 2.2 (unit: kg) Recycled oil (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 kg) Recycled papers 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.4 (unit: kg) Sewer system (unit: 0.0 695.2 0.0 162.2 0.0 6,913.5 0.0 1,613.3 kg) 27 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Centralized heating 539.8 93.9 0.0 227.7 4,438.8 530.3 0.0 1,816.3 (unit: kg) Note: other fuels specified by respondents were “Candle”, “Khargana”, “Mixed coal and dung”, “Saw Dust”, “Shahmal” “Stove” and “Zag”. They do not account for more than 10 observations and are not included in this table. (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. Table 5.5 Fuel used by the household for cars/trucks during the past month and the past 12 months Ulaanbaatar Aimag centers (1) Rural National Past month Mean Mean Mean Mean Pctg. Pctg. Pctg. Pctg. (liters) (liters) (liters) (liters) Diesel 7.7 20.3 4.6 19.9 1.3 7.5 4.5 17.1 Gasoline 30.1 79.7 18.5 80.1 15.4 92.5 21.7 82.9 Total 37.8 100.0 23.2 100.0 16.7 100.0 26.2 100.0 Past 12 months  Diesel 93.0 21.2 61.3 21.5 14.0 8.0 55.1 18.3 Gasoline 345.8 78.8 223.5 78.5 161.4 92.0 246.2 81.7 Total 438.8 100.0 284.8 100.0 175.4 100.0 301.3 100.0 (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 28 6. Herders perceptions G iven the importance of of animals. The more market oriented herders in Mongolia (OSF, alternative (setting a fee) is preferred in this 2004), the ENRMSS devoted case by 43% of the sample. a section to investigate their Table 6.2 shows herders perceptions and perceptions about the current opinions about pasture own/possession management of pastures in and grazing issues. Additional results Mongolia. Unfortunately, during the winter on herder’s perceptions can be found of 2009-2010 a new dzud hit Mongolia, in tables C.3.1 to C.3.8 in Appendix C. precisely at the time when the ENRMSS Table C.3.1 shows herders’ perceptions interviews were done, and this event had about the evolution on natural conditions, probably a deep impact on the responses which they see as deteriorating almost obtained in this section. unanimously. Table C.3.2 describes the Table 6.1 shows the opinions of herders movements of herders. Most of them move about the number of animals and about with their animals and about 20% of them the movement of these animals, indicating engage in otor movements. Table C.3.2 as well their view about potential ways shows their opinions about the sufficiency to modify current trends. Although most of pasture, hay and fodder, wells and herders perceive that the numbers of animal pens. Consistently with the dzud animals are increasing, only 31% consider that they were suffering, 43% consider that that something needs to be done to reduce winter pastures are insufficient and up to the animals in their soum. The preferred 61% consider hay and fodder provisions way to reduce the number of animals insufficient. Table C.3.4 shows ownership is to limit the number of animals that a patterns. The results show that 75% of person can own (53%) followed by what is herders posses/use winter and spring essentially a permit market for the right to pastures while only 1% declares to own own animals (an option favored by 29% of them. On the contrary, 24% of herders the sample). declare that they own a house at the winter camp. Table C.3.5 shows that herders are Slightly more than half of the sample rather pessimistic about the evolution of the considers that it is not necessary to reduce natural environment over the last decade the long-term movements of animals into (whether the question addresses pasture their soum, while 48% considers that composition, pasture yield, weather or something should be done. The preferred rivers). Table C.3.6 shows that the highest alternative is similar to the one favored priority for herders is to improve livestock about the number of animals, that is, to allow breeds and that the role of herder groups access only to herders with a small number 29 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia is rather small in Mongolia (91% declare Mongolian herders. Only 3% of herders are not to belong to a herders’ group and about covered by any type of insurance (almost 80% of them do not consider these groups in all cases the Index based livestock important). Consistent with these figures, insurance scheme). Nevertheless, only from the roughly 50% percent of herders 25% of herders declare that they are not that produced hay and fodder only 2% interested in insurance (46% declare that did it within a herders’ group. Table C.3.7 they lack information and 31% that they shows the losses suffered by herders lack financial opportunities). Thus, there during the 2001-2002 dzud (unfortunately is an important role for the World Bank this report does not contain information and other organizations in informing about about the losses during the 2009-2010 existing insurance schemes and in making dzud). Finally, Table C.3.8 shows the them accessible. prevalence of insurance practices among Table 6.1 Livestock herders perceptions about number and movement of animals in Mongolia (percentages) Confidence interval % (95%) Class Lower Upper bound bound Livestock herders think that the number of animals in their 100.0 soum is: Increasing 82.7 79.8 85.6 Decreasing 17.3 14.4 20.2 Livestock herders think that something should be done to 100.0 reduce the number of animals in their soum Yes 30.6 26.7 34.5 No 69.4 65.5 73.3 Alternatives considered more appropriate by livestock herders 100.0 to reduce the number of animals in their soum: Limit the number of animals that a person can own 52.7 45.1 60.3 Limit the number of animals that a soum can support and sell the right to have an animal to the herder ready 28.7 21.8 35.6 to pay more To improve livestock breed 13.2 8.1 18.3 Increase price of livestock 1.8 0.0 3.8 Develop the market 1.8 0.0 3.8 Do not know 1.2 0.0 2.9 Composition of livestock 0.6 0.0 1.8 30 Herders perceptions Livestock herders think that something should be done to 100.0 reduce the long-term movement of animals into their soum Yes 47.8 43.6 52.0 No 52.2 48.0 56.4 Alternatives considered more appropriate by livestock herders 100.0 to reduce the long-term movement of animals into their soum Allowing only the access of herders with a small 56.3 50.3 62.3 number of animals Setting a fee per animal for new herders that want to 43.3 37.3 49.3 move into the Soum Need to set border line more detailed way between 0.4 0.0 1.2 bags, soums and aimags Livestock herders think that improving infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and others would prevent herders from 100.0 moving for long periods to soums close to larger cities such as Ulaanbaatar Yes 72.6 69.2 76.0 No 27.4 24.0 30.8 Infrastructure considered by livestock herders that would have a larger impact in preventing long-term movement of animals 100.0 towards the soums close to larger cities such as Ulaanbaatar Infrastructure for work 48.4 43.9 52.9 Infrastructure for markets 34.4 30.1 38.7 Schools and kindergarden2 11.5 8.6 14.4 Hospitals 4.6 2.7 6.5 Infrastructure for grazing movements 0.8 0.0 1.6 Infrastructure for Dzud 0.2 0.0 0.6 31 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table 6.2 Livestock herders perceptions and opinions about pasture own/possession and grazing issues (percentages) Confidence interval % (95%) Class Lower Upper bound bound What guarantees/secures possession winter and spring 100.0 pastures Long tradition of possession 51.7 47.9 55.5 Our pens and fences are there 24.1 20.8 27.4 There are no guarantees 21.8 18.6 25.0 Distributed by the soum 2.4 1.2 3.6 Who settles disputes over pastures 100.0 There are no disputes over pastures 40.3 36.6 44.0 Herders themselves 23.9 20.6 27.2 Soum and bag governor 21.7 18.6 24.8 No one 9.7 7.4 12.0 Representative’s khural 3.3 1.9 4.7 Landowners 0.9 0.2 1.6 Agreements 0.2 0.0 0.5 Who should determine the grazing patterns of the herder 100.0 Herders themselves 44.1 40.3 47.9 Soum and bag governor 30.0 26.5 33.5 Representative’s khural 12.6 10.1 15.1 Herders group 11.2 8.8 13.6 Landowners 0.9 0.2 1.6 No need to settle 0.6 0.0 1.2 Do not know 0.5 0.0 1.0 All of them 0.2 0.0 0.5 Regarding use and possession, pastures should be 100.0 Used as common land 66.7 63.1 70.3 Have individual ownership 17.9 15.0 20.8 Possessed under contract 8.9 6.7 11.1 Used under contract 6.4 4.5 8.3 Owned by cooperative units 0.2 0.0 0.5 32 7. Perceptions on natural resources management T he section on natural resources rural Mongolians respect more Nature management in the ENRMSS and Environment than urban Mongolians. is essentially a long list of Community groups are seen as a good attitudinal questions using a way to manage natural resources, but five-point Likert scale. The privatization is not favored (neither in rural questions address issues such nor in urban areas). Forest management as the perception of respondents about by the government is seen as the worst the respect for nature in different groups of option, since respondents perceive that Mongolian society or the support to different community groups and commercial loggers management options for various types of would manage them better. Mongolians are natural resources. Table 7.1 shows the willing to give up hunting/eating marmots, results for the whole sample, while Tables deer and other animals to allow them to C.4.1 to C.4.3 in Appendix C show the recover and stopping commercial trade is results, respectively, for the Ulaanbaatar, expected to have a positive impact on wild other aimag centers and rural sub-sample. animals. Reforestation activities are clearly favored but surprisingly people tend to The results show that Mongolians perceive accept that trees are felled to collect their a clear reduction in the respect to Nature and nuts. Respondents also clearly perceive Environment and are particularly concerned that forest fire have increased over the last about the respect shown by politicians. 10 years and that illegal logging activities Urban and rural households agree that have increased. 33 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table 7.1 Attitudes and opinions about natural resources issues in Mongolia. National results. Level of Does disagreement / not Totally Totally Confidence agreement with the Agree apply Disagree agree disagree interval (95%) following statements /not (1 ‘Totally agree’, sure Mean 2 ‘Agree’, 3 ‘Does not apply/not sure’, 4 ‘Disagree’ and 5 Lower Upper % % % % % ‘Totally disagree’) bound bound Traditionally Mongolians 41.8 49.5 4.8 3.4 0.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 respected Nature and the Environment Today Mongolians respect Nature and 2.4 15.7 22.5 44.5 14.9 3.5 3.5 3.6 the Environment Today rural Mongolians respect Nature and the 11.7 51.1 22.8 12.7 1.7 2.4 2.4 2.5 Environment more than urban Mongolians Today poor Mongolians respect Nature and the 5.3 31.6 28.7 30.8 3.6 3.0 2.9 3.0 Environment more than rich Mongolians Today Mongolian politicians respect 0.9 10.1 22.1 46.4 20.6 3.8 3.7 3.8 Nature and the Environment Community groups are a good way to 6.3 48.7 29.4 13.7 1.9 2.6 2.5 2.6 manage natural resources Pasture should be 3.7 16.3 13.9 46.0 20.1 3.6 3.6 3.7 privatized Forests will be managed better by community 3.3 40.5 36.0 17.9 2.2 2.8 2.7 2.8 groups than by the government 34 Perceptions on natural resources management Forests will be managed better by commercial 5.9 44.1 31.2 17.4 1.4 2.6 2.6 2.7 loggers than by the government The licensing and management of forests/wildlife/mining 32.0 51.9 11.3 4.2 0.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 is made difficult because of corruption I want marmots and deer and other animals to be abundant again and 39.9 56.1 2.5 1.3 0.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 would be prepared to not hunt/eat them for some years to allow them to recover There would be more wild animals 38.3 56.4 2.6 2.2 0.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 if commercial trade were stopped Forest fires in my soum have become 14.4 43.9 10.8 23.7 7.3 2.7 2.6 2.7 worse in the last 10 years There has been an increase in illegal 34.5 58.4 3.5 3.1 0.5 1.8 1.7 1.8 logging activities in my soum Reforestations (planting trees) 51.0 47.6 1.1 0.2 0.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 should be promoted It is acceptable for people to fell pine 42.1 53.3 1.7 2.2 0.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 trees to collect their nuts Mongolia Special Protected Areas are 3.2 18.6 29.2 36.7 12.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 well managed 35 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 36 8. Recommendations for future surveys T he ENRMSS has tried to cover of respondents stated that they would pay a large range of issues, giving the amount offered. As already mentioned a general overview of the before, this probably implies that air perceptions of Mongolians about pollution was so important to them that their environment and their they simply did not want to say no to any natural resources and about the measure that would improve air pollution use that they make of those resources. For (especially considering that the payment the future, it probably makes sense to start was hypothetical). One way to mitigate a consultation process with stakeholders this effect would probably have been to and decision makers to find out which parts use a choice experiment design for the air of the ENRMSS were more useful to them pollution part (as the one used for sanitation and to focus in future updates on those and access to drinking water). This would sections and indicators that turned out to allow facing the respondents with different be more policy relevant. air pollution programs, each one of them with different costs, so that the respondents The same can be said about the parts of could choose one intermediate alternative the ENRMSS devoted to environmental where something is done at a reduced valuation. This first version of the ENRMSS cost. That is, air pollution is probably such has valued three different issues: air a big problem in Ulaanbaatar that nobody pollution, access to drinking water and is wiling to continue with the current sanitation. Together with the large range situation, regardless of the (hypothetical) of topics mentioned above, this option cost. However, some may prefer to do less obviously implied that the time and the effort for a small amount of money rather than devoted to each one of these valuations was a lot for a large amount of money. That limited. Future versions of the ENRMSS said, another caveat of the current section should probably focus only on the valuation on air pollution is that respondents may of one environmental problem. The not have fully understood the implications results presented in this document have of the air pollution program (i.e. the exact shown that air pollution has a very high meaning of a 20% reduction of pollutants impact on welfare in Ulaanbaatar since or the implications of this improvement for respondents were willing to pay almost them and their families). Of course, if one any amount to improve air quality in the goes for a choice experiment with various city, so that this issue is probably a good levels for the program it becomes harder candidate to invest new efforts in obtaining to make sure that respondents understand better results. Although significant efforts the differences between the alternatives were done to pre-test the scenario (see (explaining why the current version of the Appendix B.3) a surprisingly high number 37 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia ENRMSS decided to use a contingent The bottom line is that one has to choose valuation study). Nevertheless, in a survey between covering a large range of issues focused exclusively on air pollution one with a sufficient degree of precision could explain each different level of air to identify the main problems and pollution abatement using photographs and investigating only one or two issues in giving precise indications on the implication depth. The current version of the ENRMSS for the respondents of reducing 20%, 40% has followed the first option, which is or 80% the pollutants in the air. This could probably the most sensitive thing to do in be done showing pictures, or even videos, a first survey, but future versions of the of the city in the worst winter days today ENRMSS should collect only a selected and pictures of how the visibility would be in number of key indicators and should focus those winter days after the implementation on the valuations of only one issue. The of the plans. In addition, one could add results of the first ENRMSS show that the precise information about the health first candidate for this in-depth analysis is consequences for the respondents and air pollution in Ulaanbaatar, although the their families of the different plans, probably importance attached by the population to with the aid of a booklet explaining in detail desertification shows that this issue should all the problems caused by the current come soon afterwards in the list. situation and the degree in which each plan would alleviate them. 38 References Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, Caparrós A., Campos, P., and Oviedo, E. E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., J.L, 2008. Would you choose your 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel preferred option? Comparing choice on Contingent Valuation. Federal and recoded ranking experiments. Register 58(10):4601-4614. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(3): 843-855. Batbold, Kh., Tuul, Z. and Oyun, B., 2004. Access to Water and Sanitation Greene, W. 2007. Limdep Version 9.0. Services in Mongolia. UNDP, Econometric Modeling Guide Ulaanbaatar. Volume 2. New York: Econometric Software Inc. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B, Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, Grosh, M. and Glewwe, P., 2000. Designing T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Household Survey Questionnaires Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., for Developing Countries. Lessons Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R. and from 15 years of the Living Standards Swanson, J., 2004. Economic Measurement Study, Volume I to II. valuation with stated preference World Bank, Washington. techniques. A manual. Edward Hanemann, W. M., 1984. Welfare Elgar, Cheltenham. evaluations in contingent valuation Bishop, R., Heberlin, T., 1979. Measuring experiments with discrete response. values of extramarket goods: American Journal of Agriculture Are indirect measures biased? Economics 66(3):332-341. American Journal of Agriculture Intercontinental Consultants and Economics 61(5):926-930. Technocrats (ICT), 2003. Feasibility Cameron, T. A., 1988. A new paradigm Study of the Second Ulaanbaatar for valuing non-market goods Improvement Project and using referendum data: maximum Preliminary Design for Water Supply likelihood estimation by censored Facilities. Final Feasibility Study logistic regression. Journal of Report. Unpublished manuscript. Environmental Economics and JERM Consulting, 2006. Environmental Management 15:355-379. Impact Study for Sanitation Cameron, T. A, 1991. Interval estimates for Condition in the Camp Areas of non-market resource values from Ulaanbaatar City. Unpublished referendum contingent valuation Report. surveys. Land Economics, 67(4), Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. 413-421. 39 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Thurstone, L., 1927. A law of comparative Methods. Analysis and Application. judgment. Psychological Review Cambridge University Press, 34, 273–286. Cambridge. United Nations (UN), 2003. Indicators Louviere, J. J., Woodworth, G. G., 1983. for Monitoring the Millennium Design and analysis of simulated Development Goals: Definitions consumer choice or allocation Rationale Concepts and Sources. experiments: an approach based UN, New York. on aggregated data. Journal of United Nations Environmental Program Marketing Research 20:350-367. (UNEP), 2001. Mongolia: State McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit of the Environment 2002. UNEP, analysis of qualitative choice Pathumthani. behaviour. In: Zarembka, P. Whittington, D., 1998. Administering (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. Contingent Valuation Surveys Academic Press, New York, pp. in Developing Countries. World 105–142. Development 26 (1): 21-30. National Statistical Office of Mongolia Whittington, D., 2000a. Environmental (NSO), 2008. Mongolian Statistical issues. In Designing Household Yearbook. NSO, Ulaanbaatar. Survey Questionnaires for National Statistical Office of Mongolia Developing Countries. Lessons from (NSO), Ministry of Nature and 15 years of the Living Standards Environment (MNE) and Asian Measurement Study, Volume II, Development Bank (ADB), 2002. Margaret Grosh and Paul Glewwe Compendium of Environmental (editors). World Bank, Washington: Statistics of Mongolia 2000. NSO, 5-30. Ulaanbaatar. Whittington, D., 2000b. Module for Chapter National Statistical Office of Mongolia 14: Environment. In Designing (NSO), World Bank (WB), 2009. Household Survey Questionnaires Poverty Profile in Mongolia. Main for Developing Countries. Lessons Report of “Household Socio- from 15 years of the Living Economic Survey” 2007-2008. NSO Standards Measurement Study, and WB, Ulaanbaatar. Volume III, Margaret Grosh and Paul Glewwe (editors). World Bank, Open Society Forum (OSF), 2004. The Washington 285-324. Future of Nomadic Pastoralism in Mongolia: Public Perception Wingard, J.R and Zahler, P., 2006. Silent Survey. OSF, Ulaanbaatar. Steppe: The Illegal Wildlife Trade Crisis in Mongolia. World Bank, Washington. 40 Appendix A. The ENRMSS Survey After analyzing existing surveys and 24 in the province of Selenge, 26 in the statistics, the first stage of the design phase Central province and 44 in Ulaanbaatar). of the ENRMSS survey involved in-depth Taking into account the results of this pre- interviews with various private and public test the final version was prepared, which stakeholders involved in the management included four types of questionnaires (the of natural resources in Mongolia4 (in August differences between the different types of 2008). Then, in May 2009 three focus questionnaires were solely the amounts groups were done to discuss a preliminary offered in the contingent valuation and in version of the questionnaire with individuals the choice experiment). Appendix D shows representing the general population. one of these questionnaires and the third The first focus-groups was organised in section in Appendix B shows the results Ulaanbaatar (12 participants), the second referring to the valuation scenarios of the in the Erdene sum (6 participants) and the focus-groups and of the pre-test. third in the Alag-Erdene sum (6 participants, Although the ENRMSS is an independent all of them herders). survey it has been done using a sub- Using the information described above, sample of the SES survey to allow for an a first version involving two types of integrated analysis of the results coming questionnaires was prepared and pre-tested out from both surveys. The SES is a on 120 households in August-September nationally representative survey carried out 2009 (26 in the province of Khuvsgul, permanently and the ENRMSS has been done using the same sample but only during one quarter (the first quarter of 2010). More precisely, the main survey was conducted 4 Individuals and organizations consulted include: B. in January, February and March of 2010 Badamtsegtseg (NSO), Badarch (Mongolia Nature with a total of 2,805 questionnaires. These and Environment Consortium), C. Bat (Ulaanbatar questionnaires were equally distributed City Major’s Office), B. Batjav (Center for Nomadic Pastoralism Studies), C. Batsaikhan (Air Quality between the three months with a total of Department, Ulaanbaatar City), T. Bulgan (MNE), 935 questionnaires each month. B. Chimed-Ochir (WWF-Mongolia), D. Dagvadorj The SES/ENRMSS has three explicit (MNE), Davaasuren (NSO), Delgertsogt (MNE), O. Erdenedalai (Index Based Livestock Insurance strata: Ulaanbaatar, aimag centers and Project), Ehkjargal (Public Health Institute), N. rural areas (NSO and World Bank, 2009). Erdensaikahn (Open Society Forum), T. Gantulga Table A.1 shows that for the ENRMSS the (MNE), D. Javkhlan (Open Society Forum), J. Nergui distribution of the sample in the three strata (MNE), K. Schuler (Swiss Agency for Development was not proportional to size. However, and Cooperation), Solongo (Population Teaching and Research Center), D. Tsendsuren (Ulaanbaatar within each stratum it is assumed that the Service Improvement Project), T. Tumentsogt (World distribution was proportional to size and, Bank), L. Undes (MNE). therefore, that the probability of selection of each household within each stratum was 41 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia the same5. Therefore, the values shown of each stratum in the overall population throughout the report for each stratum are (the confidence intervals also take into sample values, assumed to be the same account the weight of the different strata than population values for each stratum, in the population). Table A.2 shows the while the values for the whole country distribution of the sample by aimags. (National) take into account the weight 5 Although the selection strategy of the SES is dif- ferent for each stratum, the selection probability within each stratum is the same as long as the distri- bution between the different clusters within the stra- tum is done proportional to size (NSO and World Bank, 2009). 42 Appendix A. The ENRMSS Survey Table A.1 Questionnaire distribution by strata Households in sample Households in strata(2) Strata n Pctg. n Ulaanbaatar 916 32.7 234,700 36.3 [30.9 - 34.4] Aimag centers (1) 1,265 45.1 147,000 22.8 [43.3 - 46.9] Rural 624 22.2 264,000 40.9 [20.7 - 23.8] Total 2,805 100.0 645,700 100.0 Note: Confidence intervals at 95% level are shown in brackets. (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) Source: National Statistics Office of Mongolia (NSO, 2008) Table A.2 Questionnaire distribution by aimags in Mongolia Aimag n Pctg. Ulaanbaatar 897 32.0% Ovorkhangai 150 5.3% Arhangai 126 4.5% Hovsgol 126 4.5% Tov 126 4.5% Bayankhongor 102 3.6% Bayan-Olgii 102 3.6% Khentii 102 3.6% Selenge 102 3.6% Uvs 102 3.6% Zavkhan 102 3.6% Darkhan Uul 84 3.0% Bulgan 78 2.8% Dornod 78 2.8% Dornogobi 78 2.8% Dundgobi 78 2.8% Gobi-Altai 78 2.8% Khovd 78 2.8% Omnogobi 78 2.8% Svkhbaatar 78 2.8% Orkhon 60 2.1% Total 2,805 100.0% 43 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Appendix B. Stated preferences methods The application of stated preferences efforts have address issues such as how techniques has been widely used in the to model answers to different question last decades for obtaining monetary values formats, and how to use designs that of environmental goods and services. eliminates undesirable bias and effects. When these services are not traded in Since the publication of the NOAA Panel markets, analysts and policy makers may in 1993 (Arrow et al., 1993), this technique be interested in a monetary measure has been accepted as a valid method to of the benefits of their provision. Stated obtain a monetary value for environmental preference techniques make use of survey changes when there are no market to procedures to simulate markets for these provide this value. non-market services. In these simulations, The development of econometric models respondents have to state their maximum applied to these techniques has allowed willingness to pay (WTP) or the maximum for the use of close-ended type questions willingness to accept compensation (WTA)6 (discrete responses) which do not ask for the hypothetical provision or reduction respondents directly for their WTP. These of the described environmental good. formats have been shown to be more The next section (B.1.) describes the efficient, more credible, and closer to the contingent valuation method used in the situation that respondents would face in part of the questionnaire devoted to air real markets. pollution, section B.2 describes the choice experiments method used in the part In the family of closed-ended CV questions, devoted to drinking water and sanitation. the single-dichotomous format was the first Finally, section B.3 shows the main results to be used (Bishop and Heberlein, 1979). of the focus groups and pre-tests run to In this format, respondents are faced with evaluate the understanding of the different a decision, whether or not to pay a specific scenarios by the respondents. amount of money (a single bid) to obtain an environmental service (or not paying it and not obtaining the environmental service). The responses to this question B.1. Contingent valuation provide a measure of Hicksian equivalent Contingent valuation (CV) is a stated variation (or compensating variation in preference technique that has been case a willingness to accept question is applied to value environmental goods formulated), which is a welfare measure for and services since 1963 (Bateman et al., the environmental change. 2004). To the date, numerous research Hanemann (1984) provided the first solution to the mean and median values 6 From now on, we will make reference only to willingness to pay (WTP). for equivalent and compensating variation 44 Appendix B. Stated preferences methods for the single-dichotomous question. Later, Cameron (1988) provides a method to Vij + ε ij > Vig + ε ig  Pij= P  Vij − Vig > ε ij − ε ig  = P   directly estimate the demand function, through the reparametrization of variables. (2) Both proposals are according with a utility theoretical framework, but Cameron’s one allows for the incorporation of explanatory Depending on the error specification, variables and is more statistically efficient different econometric models are used (Cameron, 1988). to estimate the parameters specified in the probability function. Of the various In the ENRMSS survey, a single suggested ways to calculate estimators dichotomous CV question was used based on data from single-dichotomous to obtain an estimation of the WTP of surveys, the methods proposed by Ulaanbaatar households for an air pollution Cameron (1988, 1991) are used. The reduction in their city. A detailed explanation following model is assumed: of the scenario (market simulation) presented to the respondent and its effects on air pollution can be found in Appendix D WTPi = xi ' β + u i (3) (section B.3 shows the pre-tests done on the scenario). Where ui is the stochastic component which Statistical treatment follows logistic distribution with zero mean and dispersion parameter k; xi’ is a vector The CV discrete formats are based on the of explanatory variables for which random utility model (RUM) (Thurstone, observations are available; and is a 1927; McFadden, 1974). Under the RUM vector of parameters to be estimated. The framework, the indirect utility function for response given by each individual i to the each respondent can be expressed as: offered value ti allows constructing the following variable: Ii = 1 if WTPi ≥ t i ; U= Vij + ε ij ij (1) otherwise I i = 0 . Thus, the probability of an where Uij is person i’s utility of choosing affirmative response to the question can be alternative j, Vij is the deterministic expressed as: component of utility, and eij is a stochastic element that represents unobservable influences on individual choice. Pr ( I i = 1) = Pr (WTPi ≥ ti ) = Pr ( xi ' β + ui ≥ ti ) The individual will pay a specific bid, if the utility of that alternative j (paying and obtaining the good) exceeds the utility of r [u i / k ≥ (t i − xi ' β ) / k ] r (u i ≥ t i − xi ' β ) = P =P the alternative g (not paying and not getting the good): Uj > Ug. Thus, the probability that (4) individual i will choose option j over options g is: The associated log-likelihood can be written and optimized directly using a non-linear iterative optimization algorithm (Cameron, 1988). However, Cameron (1991) proposes 45 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia an alternative, followed here, that reduces Data analysis programming and computation time by From the air pollution reduction single- making it possible, through a change of dichotomous CV question, four data sets variable, to use conventional logit are obtained and four models are estimated procedures such as those provided in most (one model per data set). Table B.1 statistical packages. The procedure presents the different responses obtained consists in carrying out a logit that includes from the single-dichotomous question. among the explanatory variables the value The table presents answers as given by offered to respondents. In the new logit, * respondents, but also answers recoded = ( '/k,-1/k) is the vector of increased based on a follow-up open-ended question parameters and x* = (xi’,ti) is the new vector (see Appendix D). The table details “valid” of explanatory variables. After estimating answers, “do not know” answers (which are this conventional logit model, the censored considered not valid and removed from the logit’s values are recovered by undoing the sample), and “protest no” answers (which reparametrization. The confidence intervals are removed from some data sets). Thus, were also estimated following Cameron the first data set (SD) includes all valid (1991). A conventional logit was estimated answers as given by the respondents; the to obtain point estimates for * and the second data set (SDP) includes all valid associated variance-covariance matrix ( answers (as given by the respondents) and removes protest responses; the third data ). This information yields the parameter * set (RSD) includes the recoded answers; variance-covariance matrix ( ) after some and the fourth data set (RSDP) includes the recoded answers and removes protest manipulations of and its related * responses. In the lower part of table B.1, we explain how the answers are recoded information and transformation matrix. based on the open-ended question. Table B.1 Single dichotomous contingent valuation questions Valid answers Invalid answers Answers as given Do not Protest N Yes No n know “no” Vote for the plan? 691 87 778 96 42 916 Type 1 (bid 10,000 Tugrugs) 183 15 198 17 10 225 Type 2 (bid 20,000 Tugrugs) 180 19 199 18 11 228 Type 3 (bid 50,000 Tugrugs) 174 21 195 29 8 232 Type 4 (bid 150,000 Tugrugs) 154 32 186 32 13 231 Answers recoded based on the responses to the OE question Vote for the plan? 680 176 856 0 60 916 Type 1 (bid 10,000 Tugrugs) 181 28 209 0 16 225 Type 2 (bid 20,000 Tugrugs) 177 37 214 0 14 228 Type 3 (bid 50,000 Tugrugs) 171 47 218 0 14 232 Type 4 (bid 150,000 Tugrugs) 151 64 215 0 16 231 46 Appendix B. Stated preferences methods Recoding of the single dichotomous Valid answers Invalid answers question Do not Protest N Yes No n know “no” Change in answers to the SD question -11 89 78 -96 18 0 “Do not know” answers recoded to “Yes” answers: Stated WTP in the OE question is 5 - 5 -5 - 0 higher than the bid offered in SD question “Yes” answers recoded to “No” answers: Stated WTP in the OE question is lower than -16 16 0 - - 0 the bid offered in the SD question “Do not know” answers recoded to “no” answers: Stated WTP in the OE question is - 73 73 -91 18 0 lower than the bid offered in SD question Note: OE stands for “open-ended” and SD stands for “single-dichotomous”. These data sets will provide respectively To decide which model is better to provide an the SD, SDP, RSD and RSDP logit models, estimated value of the WTP for air pollution which are shown in the top part of Table B.2. reduction program, a first criterion is that These models do not include explanatory models without protest are preferred over variables apart from the “bid”. models with protest responses. A second criterion is to look at the best model fit based Table B.2 also shows the models coming out on McFadden’s pseudo-R2. A third criterion from these four data sets that incorporate is to choose the model with a higher number explanatory variables. These models are of significant explanatory variables, since denoted with an E subscript (SDE, SDPE, they accommodate better for respondents’ RSDE and RSDPE models). The explanatory heterogeneity. Models without protest and variables used were taken from the different with explanatory variables present better questions of the questionnaire. After an pseudo-R2 than models with protest and analysis of correlation and of individual without explanatory variables. This leaves significance of each potential explanatory the SDPE and the RSDPE models. The variable, the only significant and not RSDPE model includes the income and the correlated variables are the household difficulty indicator as explanatory variables, total monthly net income and an indicator and presents a better pseudo-R2. Thus, the of the respondent’s perceived difficulty of RSDPE model is considered the best one. the CV question7. The models in table B.2 do not include these variables if they are not significant. From these logit models, the WTP function is directly obtained through the reparametrization proposed in Cameron (1988). The WTP functions are shown in the main text of this report in Table 4.2. 7 A dummy variable that takes value 1 if respondent disagreed or totally disagreed that deciding his/her answer was difficult; see table C.2.10 in Appendix C. 47 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table B.2 Single dichotomous logit models for air pollution reduction in Ulaanbaatar Model without SD Model (1) SDP Model (2) RSD Model (3) RSDP Model (4) explanatory variables Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Intercept 1.9870*** 2.4449*** 1.3678*** 1.7365*** (0.1461) (0.1771) (0.1143) (0.1310) Bid -5.0008E-06 *** -5.8947E-06 *** -5.0285E-06 *** -6.0797E-06*** (1.6353E-06) (1.9128E-06) (1.3102E-06) (1.4451E-06) n 820 778 916 856 McFadden pseudo-r 2 0.012 0.016 0.013 0.020 Model with explanatory SDE Model (5) SDPE Model (6) RSDE Model (7) RSDPE Model (8) variables Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Intercept 1.4136*** 1.7703*** 0.3748 0.5006* (0.2990) (0.3472) (0.2556) (0.2766) Income (9) 2.6909E-06 ** 3.2037E-06 ** 2.6906E-06 *** 3.7172E-06*** (1.2564E-06) (1.4725E-06) (1.0381E-06) (1.1406E-06) 0.7736 *** 0.8649*** Difficulty (10) (0.1578) (0.1798) Bid -5.0827E-06 *** -6.0611E-06 *** -4.3178E-06 *** -5.3994E-06*** (1.6435E-06) (1.9259E-06) (1.3495E-06) (1.4992E-06) n 820 778 916 856 McFadden pseudo-r2 0.018 0.024 0.045 0.061 Note: Standard deviations are shown in brackets. (1) The SD model is single-dichotomous and includes all valid answers (as given by the respondents). (2) The SDP model is single-dichotomous and includes all valid answers (as given by the respondents) minus protest responses. (3) The RSD model is single-dichotomous and include all valid answers (recoded based on the open-ended question). (4) The RSDP model is single-dichotomous and includes all valid answers (recoded based on the open- ended question) minus protest responses. (5) The SDE model is single-dichotomous with explanatory variables and includes all valid answers (as given by the respondents). (6) The SDPE model is single-dichotomous with explanatory variables and includes all valid answers (as given by the respondents) minus protest responses. (7) The RSDE model is single-dichotomous with explanatory variables and include all valid answers (recoded based on the open-ended question). (8) The RSDPE model is single-dichotomous with explanatory variables and includes all valid answers (recoded based on the open-ended question) minus protest responses. (9) Household total monthly net income. (10) =1 if respondent disagreed or totally disagreed that deciding his/her answer was difficult. 48 Appendix B. Stated preferences methods B.2 Choice experiments Statistical treatment In the early 90’s choice experiments (CE) The CE is a specific form of discrete choice started to be applied to environmental format for environmental valuation. It is also valuation, adapting other conjoint analysis based on the Random Utility Model (RUM). techniques used in marketing and transport In the last years, CE has emerged as one economics (Louviere y Woodworth, 1983). the most used formats of conjoint analysis CE pursue the same objective tan CV but applied to environmental valuation, as employing a format based in multi-attribute opposed to other conjoint analysis formats stimuli. In CE, respondents state their as ranking or rating (Caparrós et al., 2008). preferences about an environmental service It is assumed that utility depends on choices defined by several attributes, including a made from some set C of alternatives. The payment attribute (bid), which allows for representative individual is assumed to translating utility into monetary terms. This have a utility function with a deterministic technique is especially adequate for valuing (Vij) and a random ( ij) part: environmental programs involving several environmental aspects (as it is the case in = U ij Vij ( Z ij , Si ) + ε ij ( Z ij , Si ) the CE for drinking water and sanitation (5) improvements plan within the ENRMSS survey). In addition, it mitigates the main Utility derived from any option is assumed to problem of CV studies in developing depend on the attributes, Z, of that option. S countries: that the amount requested to represents the individual’s socioeconomic perform a given environmental program characteristics that will also affect utility. (the bid) is sometimes completely out of The probability that individual i will choose reach of the household. The reason why option j over other options g (given that g is this problem is less relevant with the CE is any alternative in the complete choice set that with this method a high bid will always C different than i) is given by: be presented at the same time as a more modest contribution. Vij + ε ij > Vig + ε ig  Pij= P  Vij − Vig > ε ij − ε ig  = P   ∀g ∈ C (6) Depending on the error specification, distribution across the g alternatives and i different econometric models are obtained, individuals, the probability model gives the which will estimate the parameters conditional logit (CL) model: specified for the explanatory variables in Vij, given that: Vij = β z X iz ' (7) µV exp ij Pij = µV (8) ∑ g∈C exp ig where z are the parameters for the z attributes; and Xiz’ is the vector of the z where µ is the scale parameter (normalized explanatory variables for the ith individual. to 1 in this model). The conditional logit model is useful as base-line case, but it If errors are independently and identically relies on the hypothesis of independence distributed with an extreme value of irrelevant alternatives, which mean that 49 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia errors are not correlated among different branch and a “no plan” branch. The latter is alterntaives. known as a degenerate branch (Louviere, Hensher and Swait 2000, pp. 153-154). On the other hand, the nested logit (NL) model groups alternatives in classes so In the nested logit model the probability that error terms are allowed to be correlated of choosing alternative j from branch r is within the alternatives of the same class, the product of two terms: the probability but not between alternatives in different of choosing any of the alternatives within groups. For our model, we group “choose branch r (Pijr) and the conditional probability a plan” (alternatives A and B) in a class of of choosing j given the choice of branch r, alternatives and “do not choose any plan” (Pij|r): in another class. Thus, we set a “plan” Pij P Vijr + λr I ijr  exp   Vij  exp   = =ijr P ∑ ∑ ij |r r∈R Vijr + λr I ijr  exp   g∈C Vig  exp   (9) where Iijr is the inclusive value of the branch Vit will take the following form: r and r is the inclusive value parameter of branch r. The inclusive value is a measure of the expected maximum utility from the alternatives associated with the rth class of V =ij (β z  X′ +β ) iz iz (10) alternatives. For the degenerate branch, the inclusive value parameter is fixed to 1 (Louviere, Hensher and Swait 2000, p. 154).  The deviation parameters β iz( ) will have a Finally, the random parameters logit (RPL) model has the advantage of allowing for distribution that has to be set a priori (here correlated error terms and is not subject to a normal distribution is assumed, except the independence of irrelevant alternatives. for the payment attribute, which is assumed This model also allows relaxing the to be constant). The probabilities associated assumption that all individuals have the with the utility function will not have same preferences over alternatives and it generally a closed-form solution but recent models unobservable heterogeneous simulation techniques allow for the preferences. Now, the error term is estimation of this probability function. decomposed in an unobserved preference heterogeneity component and an alternative specific component. Thus, each individual Experimental design has his/her own vector of parameters ( β zi ) The CE requires an experimental design to obtain efficient modeling from all possible which deviate from the population mean information from the combination of alternatives and attributes in the choice set. ( β ) by the vector ( β ) . Thus, the function z z In the CE included in the ENRMSS survey, two categorical attributes were included in 50 Appendix B. Stated preferences methods the alternatives and two alternatives plus and an example of a choice set can be the status quo were included in each choice seen in Appendix D (see section B.3 for set. Each respondent faced two choice set a description of the pre-tests done for the in the questionnaire. different scenarios). Table B.3 present the combination of attributes in the alternatives, The attributes were the realization of a and the different alternatives (programs A, drinking water improvement plan and the B or C) for the different types of choice sets realization of a sanitation improvement included in the questionnaires. plan. The characteristics of each plan Table B.3 Experimental design for the drinking water and sanitation improvement choice experiment Choice programs 1 Program A Program B Program C Type 1 Drinking water improvement plan Yes No No Sanitation improvement plan No Yes No Tax increase (1) 50,000 Tg 35,000 Tg 0 Tg Type 2 Drinking water improvement plan No Yes No Sanitation improvement plan Yes No No Tax increase (1) 50,000 Tg 35,000 Tg 0 Tg Type 3 Drinking water improvement plan Yes No No Sanitation improvement plan No Yes No Tax increase (1) 35,000 Tg 20,000 Tg 0 Tg Type 4 Drinking water improvement plan No Yes No Sanitation improvement plan Yes No No Tax increase (1) 35,000 Tg 20,000 Tg 0 Tg Choice programs 2 Program A Program B Program C Type 1 Drinking water improvement plan No Yes No Sanitation improvement plan No Yes No Tax increase (1) 5,000 Tg 50,000 Tg 0 Tg Type 2 Drinking water improvement plan Yes No No Sanitation improvement plan Yes No No Tax increase (1) 5,000 Tg 50,000 Tg 0 Tg Type 3 Drinking water improvement plan Yes No No 51 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Sanitation improvement plan Yes No No Tax increase (1) 20,000 Tg 5,000 Tg 0 Tg Type 4 Drinking water improvement plan No Yes No Sanitation improvement plan No Yes No Tax increase (1) 20,000 Tg 5,000 Tg 0 Tg (1) Tugrugs per year during five years Program C always represented the Data analysis status quo and thus it never includes the Table B.4 shows the number of times realization of any plan. Programs A and B programs A, B and C were chosen in implied moving from the status quo and each of the choice set presented to the could include one of the plans or both of respondent either as the first choice set in them. In these cases, the realization of one the questionnaire, or as the second choice or both plans implied a payment through a set in the questionnaire. tax increase during the following five years. The vector of bid was designed based on a pre-test survey. Table B.4 Choices of the different drinking water and/or sanitation improvement programs Percentage of choices of: Choice programs 1 (first in the questionnaire) Program A Program B Program C Type 1 35% 37% 28% Type 2 22% 46% 31% Type 3 40% 32% 28% Type 4 24% 49% 27% Total choice programs 1 30% 41% 29% Choice programs 2 (second in the questionnaire) Type 1 17% 55% 29% Type 2 69% 6% 25% Type 3 62% 12% 26% Type 4 12% 67% 21% Total choice programs 2 40% 35% 25% Total choice programs 35% 38% 27% (1) Tugrugs per year during five years 52 Appendix B. Stated preferences methods The CE models analyze only one data set, of the same environmental project since for this experiment protest responses presented to respondents. Table 4.3 in the were not identified and there is no possibility main text of this report shows the willingness of recoding answers (Appendix D). For to pay function for the preferred models9. this data set, a model without explanatory Tables B.5 and B.6 show the probabilistic variables is estimated (only including the choice models (with and without explanatory drinking and sanitation attributes) and variables) for the NL. The models are then a model incorporating explanatory presented for the three subsample of the variables interacting with the drinking and survey in each table: Ulaanbaatar, aimag sanitation attributes. These two models are centers and rural households. The reason analyzed using the CL, NL and RPL. for presenting only the results for the NL To select the explanatory variables, the models is that those are the preferred same procedure as in the CV exercise models as explained below. (see above) has been used, ending up The criteria for selecting the model used to with the household total monthly net estimate the willingness to pay values for the income, the respondent’s age, and an drinking water and sanitation improvement indicator of respondent’s credibility about programs are the McFadden pseudo-R2 the realization of the plans8 as the only and the number of explanatory variables of significant and non-correlated variables. As the models. Comparing Table B.5 and B.6 for the CV models, the presented models it can be seen that the nested logit models do not include these variables when they with explanatory variables have better are not significant for a specific model. explanatory power (for simplicity Table To compute willingness to pay values, the B.6 presents only the results for the rural associated to the attribute ( z) is sub-sample, but the comparison yields the same results for the other sub-samples). divided by the associated to the From the two models with explanatory payment-vehicle ( BID), with negative sign. variables, the NLC model is the preferred When different explanatory variables affect one for the three subsamples. Thus, for the drinking and the sanitation plan, computing willingness to pay values, only different willingness to pay function are the nested logit derived willingness to pay obtained for each of the plans, although functions are shown in Table 4.4 in the main both functions are part of the same text of this report. probabilistic model, since both are attributes 8 A dummy variable that takes value 1 if respondent disagreed or totally disagreed that it is likely that at least one of the plans will be implemented; see table C.9.1 in Appendix C. 9 We used the Wald procedure (Green, 2007, p. E38-2) for calculating the variance for the willingness to pay. Confidence intervals at 95% can be constructed invoking Cramer’s theorem. 53 Table B.5 Nested logit models for the drinking water and sanitation improvement plans choice experiment. Models without and with 54 explanatory variables for the Ulaanbaatar, Aimag centers and Rural strata. Ulaanbaatar Aimag centers (2) Rural Models (1) NLUB NLIUB NLCAI NLRU NLCRU NLCUB model NLAI model NLIAI model NLIRU model model model model model model Coeffi- Coeffi- Coeffi- Coeffi- Coeffi- Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients cients cients cients cients cients Drinking water 0.8294*** 0.5297*** 0.7234*** 1.0387*** 0.2942*** 0.6876*** 1.6471*** 0.4055*** 1.6552*** intercept (0.0606) (0.1573) (0.2218) (0.0601) (0.0920) (0.1262) (0.1000) (0.1191) (0.1006) -0.0077** -0.0059* Drinking* age (0.0031) (0.0033) 1.6139E- Drinking* income 1.8278E-06*** 06** (3) (6.9079E-07) (6.0286E-07) Drinking* credibil- 0.7836*** 0.8965*** 1.5428*** ity (4) (0.0990) (0.1028) (0.1432) Sanitation inter- 0.6059*** 0.2663 0.8848*** 0.8145*** 0.3355** 0.2489* 0.4529*** -0.2601** 0.1627 cept (0.0604) (0.1626) (0.1593) (0.0596) (0.1669) (0.1284) (0.0960) (0.1270) (0.1668) -0.0081** -0.0066* -0.0070** Sanitation* age (0.0032) (0.0034) (0.0032) Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Sanitation* income 2.9380E-06*** 2.2251E-06** (3) (6.1721E-07) (1.0608E-06) Sanitation* cred- 0.8708*** 0.9602*** 0.7859*** ibility (4) (0.1033) (0.1060) (0.1584) Tax increase -0.0066*** -0.0116*** -0.0070*** -0.0158*** -0.0194*** -0.0167*** -0.0190*** -0.0262*** -0.0193*** (0.0020) (0.0017) (0.0020) (0.0020) (0.0018) (0.0020) (0.0034) (0.0025) (0.0034) PLANIV (5) 0.9470*** 1.4644*** 0.9759*** 0.6485*** 0.9276*** 0.6857*** 0.5027*** 1.0384*** 0.5042*** (0.0673) (0.1107) (0.0698) (0.0455) (0.0650) (0.0481) (0.0518) (0.0994) (0.0520) n 1,832 1,832 1,832 2,530 2,530 2,530 1,248 1,248 1,248 McFadden pseu- 0.207 0.251 0.210 0.176 0.210 0.181 0.210 0.272 0.211 do-r2 Note: We do not include correlated and non-significant (< 10%) explanatory variables. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Asterisks (e.g.,*,**,***) denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively. (1) NL stands for “nested logit model”. UB, AI and RU subscript stands for “Ulaanbaatar”·, “Urban” and “Rural” respectively. NLC stands for “nested logit model with ‘credibility’ and ‘respondent’s age’ as explanatory variables”, while NLI stands for “nested logit model with ‘income’ and ‘respondent’s age’ as explanatory variables”. Income and age cannot be together in the same regression due to correlation. UB, AI and RU subscript stands for “Ulaanbaatar”·, “Urban” and “Rural” respectively. Models with explanatory variable presents. (2) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (3) Household total monthly net income. (4) =1 if respondent agreed or totally agreed that the plans were credible. (5) Inclusive value for the “plan” branch. Appendix B. Stated preferences methods 55 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table B.6 Conditional logit and random parameter models for the drinking water and sanitation improvement plans choice experiment. Models without and with explanatory variables for the Rural strata. Models (1) Ulaanbaatar CLCRU model RPLCRU model Coefficients Coefficients Drinking water intercept 0.4184*** -0.3602 (0.1168) (0.8611) Drinking* age Drinking*income (2) Drinking*credibility (3) 1.5655*** 6.5857*** (0.1396) (1.7695) Sanitation intercept 0.3182 -0.1946 (0.2436) (0.7279) Sanitation*age -0.0133*** (0.0050) Sanitation*income (2) Sanitation*credibility (3) 0.7947*** 1.2505 (0.1573) (0.7920) Tax increase -0.0262*** -0.0704*** (0.0025) (0.0111) Standard error parameters 5.0591*** Drinking water intercept (1.5864) 0.8540 Drinking*credibility (3) (1.8693) 1.9758* Sanitation intercept (1.1831) 4.5547*** Sanitation*credibility (3) (1.2160) n 1,248 1,248 McFadden pseudo-r2 0.225 0.242 Note: We do not include correlated and non-significant (< 10%) explanatory variables. Standard errors are shown in brackets. Asterisks (e.g.,*,**,***) denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level, respectively. (1) CLC stands for “conditional logit model with ‘credibility’ and ‘respondent’s age’ as explanatory variables”, and RPLC stands for “random parameter logit model with ‘income’ and ‘respondent’s age’ as explanatory variables”. RU subscript stands for “Rural”. (2) Household total monthly net income. (3) =1 if respondent agreed or totally agreed that the plans were credible. 56 Appendix B. Stated preferences methods B.3 The design of the valuation scenarios are as follows. In focus group scenarios number 1 all five participants considered Deciding how much information to provide that the text for air pollution was neither in a valuation exercise is always a difficult too long nor too short and four out of five decision. The best way to judge whether or considered that they understood the air not the information provided was enough pollution text and the valuation question. to describe the scenario properly is to The text in the choice experiment was also compare it with the standard practice in considered of adequate length, although other valuation surveys and to analyze the only three out of five considered that they results obtained in the focus-groups and understood the scenario. Focus group pre-tests. 2 obtained similar results, with six out of six participants considering the length of The first relevant consideration is that the both sections adequate and five out of ENRMSS values three different issues and six declaring that they understood the air that it is not exclusively a valuation study, pollution scenario while all participants but a valuation exercise within a large raised issues about the choice scenario. questionnaire that gathers information on Focus group 3 only presented the choice different issues (there are 10 sections and experiment since it was done in a rural only sections 2 and 9 are valuation sections). area and three out of seven considered Thus, to avoid fatiguing the respondents it that they understood the choice scenario was necessary to be relatively brief in the (drinking water and sanitation). As a result presentation of information. of these results the air pollution section The contingent valuation in Section 2, was kept relatively unchanged while the dedicated to urban air pollution, has a choice experiment scenario (drinking water scenario that is almost identical to the one and sanitation) was changed substantially, in Whittington (2000b), although adapted taking into account the different comments to the case of Ulaanbaatar, since the received. ultimate goal of the statistical efforts of Then, a pretest with 120 interviews was the World Bank is to provide comparable done (see Appendix A) with the second results for different developing countries. version of the questionnaire. For the air In the scenario constructed for the choice pollution program (section 2), respondents experiment in section 9 the goal was to were asked whether they felt that they provide a similar amount of information in needed additional information to give an a relatively short description (see Appendix accurate answer. Table B.7 summarizes D) since the survey was already very long. the results obtained, showing that 71% The results of the focus groups undertaken of the sample considered the information (see Appendix A) to evaluate these provided sufficient. 57 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table B.7 What else would you like to know to make a better decision on whether to vote for or against the air quality improvement program? (i.e., what additional information would you like to have) (N=45) Response Percentage Nothing else 71% Causes of air pollution 2% An overall plan 9% More definition of work 2% Information from official office 4% Type of operation 2% How to decrease Ger district’s air pollution 2% Real information 2% Appropriate policy of government 2% Advertisement by the TV addressed public 2% Respondents were also asked how certain The mean obtained was 4.16, with N = 45 they were about their answer to the since only 45 out of 120 questionnaires valuation question in section 2 using the were done in Ulaanbaatar and had to following question: answer the air pollution question, showing that respondents were between “somewhat certain” and “very certain” about their “2.15 How certain / sure are you of your answers. answer? After introducing the changes to the choice Very uncertain .................... 1 experiment section (drinking water and SOMEWHAT uncertain ……. 2 sanitation) with the inputs from the focus groups, the results obtained in the pre- About average.……….……..3 test were also satisfactory. Question 9.4 SOMEWHAT certain …..…….4 asked respondents if they understood the programs, with the following format: Very certain ......................... 5” “9.4 I understood the water and sanitation improvement plans 1 2 3 4 5 Doesn’t apply / not Totally disagree Disagree Agree Totally agree” sure 58 Appendix B. Stated preferences methods The mean obtained was 3.88 (with N = 120), about their choice. Question 9.5 asked to showing that the respondents understood rate the following sentence: the plans. “9.5 I was sure about the option that I chose Respondents were also relatively sure in question 9.1 1 2 3 4 5 Doesn’t apply / Totally disagree Disagree Agree Totally agree” not sure The mean obtained was 4.10, with N = 120. Finally, question 9.7 of the pre-test asked respondents whether they would have liked to get additional information to evaluate the drinking water and sanitation programs. As Table B.8 shows, 82% of the 120 respondents considered that they needed no additional information. Table B.8 What else would you like to know to make a better decision on which alternative you would prefer in question 9.1? (i.e., what additional information would you like to have) (N=120) Response Percentage Nothing else 82% More detailed information in general 3% More information about cost 2% Plan implementation 7% How to measure improvement 2% To include smoke problems in the plan 1% Water issues 1% Questionnaire is long and boring 1% To report by tv and radio 1% These results were considered satisfactory, shown in Appendix D. yielding the final version of the questionnaire 59 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Appendix C. Additional Tables The tables in this Appendix follow the C.2.1 to C.2.10 refer to the questions sections and the order of the questionnaire included in section 2 of the questionnaire (see Appendix D). For example, Tables shown in Appendix D. Table C.2.1. Sources of energy used by households for heating and cooking in Mongolia (percentages). National results Most frequently used for Most frequently used for cooking heating (1) (2) Source of energy Confidence interval Confidence interval (95%) (95%) % % Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Electricity 1.7 1.3 2.2 29.2 27.8 30.5 Firewood 29.4 27.6 31.3 27.6 25.9 29.4 Coal 20.4 19.0 21.7 11.0 9.9 12.1 Gas 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.8 Dung/compacted dung 29.6 28.2 31.1 30.2 28.8 31.7 Charcoal 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 Recycled materials 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solar panels 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wind turbines 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Others 16.5 15.3 17.8 0.3 0.1 0.6 Do not use/did not score 2.1 1.6 2.6 1.0 0.6 1.3 as frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 Proportion of the households using solid 68.9 67.5 70.3 fuels – Former MDI (3) (1) As second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 26.1%, “Coal” accounts for 15.6% and “Dung/ compacted dung” accounts for 8.6%; as third most frequently used, “Electricity” accounts for 1.6%, “Coal” accounts for 2.7% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 2.1%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (2) As second most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 6.7%, “Firewood” accounts for 23.8%, “Coal” accounts for 13.8% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 8.0%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 12.3%, “Firewood” accounts for 2.8%, “Coal” accounts for 10.0% and “Dung/ compacted dung” accounts for 1.6%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (3) Former Millennium Development Indicator – This indicator is calculated taking into account the proportion of the households using firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung and charcoal as the primary source of domestic energy for cooking and heating. This implies calculating the number of households that stated that their primary source of energy was any of the previous (firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung or charcoal) both for the heating and for the cooking activities and not just for one of them. 60 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.2.2 Sources of energy used by households for heating and cooking in Mongolia (percentages). Ulaanbaatar sample Most frequently used for Most frequently used for cooking heating (1) (2) Source of energy Confidence interval (95%) Confidence interval (95%) Lower Upper Lower % % Upper bound bound bound bound Electricity 2.5 1.5 3.5 60.0 56.9 63.2 Firewood 22.7 20.0 25.4 16.6 14.2 19.0 Coal 35.8 32.7 38.9 20.6 18.0 23.3 Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 1.2 Dung/compacted dung 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 Charcoal 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 Recycled materials 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solar panels 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wind turbines 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Others 35.4 32.3 38.5 0.5 0.1 1.0 Do not use/did not score 3.4 2.2 4.6 1.3 0.6 2.0 as frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 Proportion of the households using solid 37.3 34.2 40.5 fuels – Former MDI (3) (1) As second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 36.9% and “Coal” accounts for 19.8%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 2.2% and “Coal” accounts for 1.3%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (2) As second most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 6.7%, “Firewood” accounts for 34.9%, “Coal” accounts for 16.3% and “Gas” accounts for 1.0%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 21.3%, “Firewood” accounts for 4.4% and “Coal” accounts for 15.5%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (3) Former Millennium Development Indicator (not in the official list after 2008)– This indicator shows the proportion of the households using firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung and charcoal as the primary source of domestic energy for cooking and heating. This implies calculating the number of households that stated that their primary source of energy was any of the previous (firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung or charcoal) both for the heating and for the cooking activities and not just for one of them. 61 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.2.3 Sources of energy used by households for heating and cooking in Mongolia (percentages). Aimag centers (1) sample Most frequently used for Most frequently used for cooking heating (2) (3) Source of energy Confidence interval (95%) Confidence interval (95%) Lower Upper Lower Upper % % bound bound bound bound Electricity 3.1 2.1 4.0 25.8 23.4 28.3 Firewood 42.0 39.3 44.7 44.7 42.0 47.5 Coal 25.6 23.2 28.0 12.6 10.7 14.4 Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 1.1 Dung/compacted dung 13.0 11.2 14.9 14.1 12.2 16.0 Charcoal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled materials 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solar panels 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wind turbines 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Others 13.0 11.1 14.8 0.3 0.0 0.6 Do not use/did not score as 3.3 2.3 4.3 1.8 1.1 2.6 frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 Proportion of the households using solid fuels – Former 71.1 68.6 73.6 MDI (4) (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) As second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 23.6%, “Coal” accounts for 20.1% and “Dung/ compacted dung” accounts for 12.1%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 1.7%, “Firewood” accounts for 2.2%, “Coal” accounts for 4.4% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 6.3%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (3) As second most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 16.6%, “Firewood” accounts for 16.3%, “Coal” accounts for 21.1% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 10.4%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 14.8%, “Firewood” accounts for 3.6%, “Coal” accounts for 9.6% and “Dung/ compacted dung” accounts for 6.1%; as fourth most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 3.2% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 1.9%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second, third or fourth most frequently used). (4) Former Millennium Development Indicator (not in the official list after 2008)– This indicator shows the proportion of the households using firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung and charcoal as the primary source of domestic energy for cooking and heating. This implies calculating the number of households that stated that their primary source of energy was any of the previous (firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung or charcoal) both for the heating and for the cooking activities and not just for one of them. 62 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.2.4 Sources of energy used by households for heating and cooking in Mongolia (percentages). Urban (1) sample Most frequently used for Most frequently used for cooking heating (2) (3) Source of energy Confidence interval (95%) Confidence interval (95%) Lower Upper Lower Upper % % bound bound bound bound Electricity 2.7 1.8 3.7 47.1 44.4 49.7 Firewood 30.0 27.4 32.6 27.3 24.8 29.8 Coal 31.9 29.3 34.5 17.6 15.5 19.7 Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 1.1 Dung/compacted dung 5.0 3.7 6.4 5.4 4.0 6.8 Charcoal 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 Recycled materials 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solar panels 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wind turbines 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Others 26.9 24.5 29.2 0.5 0.1 0.8 Do not use/did not score as 3.4 2.3 4.4 1.5 0.8 2.2 frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 Proportion of the households using solid 50.2 47.5 52.8 fuels – Former MDI (4) (1) Ulaanbaatar plus Aimag centers sample. (2) As second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 31.9%, “Coal” accounts for 19.% and “Dung/ compacted dung” accounts for 4.7%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 2.0%, “Firewood accounts for 2.5% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 2.6%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (3) As second most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 10.4%, “Firewood” accounts for 27.9%, “Coal” accounts for 18.1%, “Gas” accounts for 1.0% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 4.1%; as third most frequently used “Electricity” accounts for 18.8%, “Firewood” accounts for 4.1%, “Coal” accounts for 13.2% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 2.4. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (4) Former Millennium Development Indicator – This indicator is calculated taking into account the proportion of the households using firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung and charcoal as the primary source of domestic energy for cooking and heating. This implies calculating the number of households that stated that their primary source of energy was any of the previous (firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung or charcoal) both for the heating and for the cooking activities and not just for one of them. 63 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.2.5 Sources of energy used by households for heating and cooking in Mongolia (percentages). Rural sample Most frequently used for Most frequently used for cooking heating (1) (2) Source of energy Confidence interval (95%) Confidence interval (95%) Lower Upper Lower Upper % % bound bound bound bound Electricity 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.3 Firewood 28.5 25.0 32.1 28.2 24.7 31.7 Coal 1.9 0.8 3.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 Gas 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.8 Dung/compacted dung 68.9 65.3 72.5 69.9 66.3 73.5 Charcoal 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 Recycled materials 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solar panels 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wind turbines 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Others 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 Do not use/did not score as 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 Proportion of the households using solid fuels – Former MDI 98.7 97.8 99.6 (3) (1) As second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 15.4%, “Coal” accounts for 8.2%, “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 16.0% and “Others” accounts for 1.3; as third most frequently used, “Firewood” accounts for 1.1%, “Coal” accounts for 3.2% and “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 1.4%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (2) As second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 15.9%, “Coal” accounts for 6.6%, “Dung/compacted dung” accounts for 15.2%, and “Others” accounts for 1.0%; as third most frequently used, “Coal” accounts for 4.0%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second or third most frequently used). (3) Former Millennium Development Indicator – This indicator is calculated taking into account the proportion of the households using firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung and charcoal as the primary source of domestic energy for cooking and heating. This implies calculating the number of households that stated that their primary source of energy was any of the previous (firewood, coal, dung/compacted dung or charcoal) both for the heating and for the cooking activities and not just for one of them. 64 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.2.6 Household perceptions about air pollution problems in urban cities in Mongolia (percentages) % Confidence interval (95%) Class Lower bound Upper bound Urban households in the sample 77.8 76.3 79.3 Household opinion about air quality in their city 100.0 Very clean 4.1 3.3 4.9 Fairly clean 27.5 25.6 29.4 About average 29.3 27.4 31.2 Somewhat polluted 20.0 18.3 21.7 Very polluted 19.0 17.4 20.6 Household opinion about the most important source of 100.0 air pollution in their city Household heating 78.9 77.2 80.6 Electric power plants 11.4 10.1 12.7 Cars and buses 5.0 4.1 5.9 Steel and chemical factories 1.7 1.2 2.2 Waste 1.6 1.1 2.1 Others 1.4 0.9 1.9 Household opinion about their personal contribution to 100.0 air pollution problems Much less than the average household 23.6 21.8 25.4 Somewhat less than the average household 22.8 21.0 24.6 About the same as other households 50.6 48.5 52.7 Somewhat more than the average household 2.4 1.8 3.0 Much more than the average household 0.6 0.3 0.9 Household concerns about consequences from air 100.0 pollution in urban cities Health effects 93.7 92.7 94.7 Adverse effects on trees and other plants 3.9 3.1 4.7 Increased costs of cleaning 1.2 0.7 1.7 Reduced visibility 0.9 0.5 1.3 Others 0.3 0.1 0.5 Importance of air quality improvement to Mongolian 100.0 households Very important 55.9 53.8 58.0 Somewhat important 38.6 36.6 40.6 About average 4.0 3.2 4.8 Not very important 1.3 0.8 1.8 Not important at all 0.2 0.0 0.4 65 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.2.7 Household perceptions about minor and major respiratory health problems in family members (percentages) Confidence interval (95%) % Class Lower bound Upper bound At least one member of the household suffers from chronic, minor respiratory health problems (e.g., 100.0 bronchitis, colds, flu) Yes 25.7 23.9 27.5 No 74.3 72.5 76.1 Household opinion about air pollution contribution to the chronic, minor respiratory health problems of family 100.0 members: Air pollution is not the cause 6.8 4.7 8.9 Air pollution is a relatively minor cause 25.8 22.2 29.4 Air pollution is one of several causes 23.9 20.4 27.4 Air pollution contributes a lot 25.1 21.5 28.7 Air pollution is the main cause 18.4 15.2 21.6 At least one member of the household suffers from chronic, major respiratory health problems (e.g., 100.0 bronchitis, colds, flu) Yes 3.9 3.1 4.7 No 96.1 95.3 96.9 Household opinion about air pollution contribution to the chronic, major respiratory health problems of family 100.0 members: Air pollution is not the cause 2.4 0.0 5.7 Air pollution is a relatively minor cause 14.1 6.7 21.5 Air pollution is one of several causes 25.9 16.6 35.2 Air pollution contributes a lot 31.8 21.9 41.7 Air pollution is the main cause 25.9 16.6 35.2 Household opinion about linkage between air pollution 100.0 and human health in the general population Air pollution does not cause health problems 2.9 2.2 3.6 Air pollution is a minor cause of health problems 24.6 22.8 26.4 Air pollution is one cause among others 7.3 6.2 8.4 Air pollution is important, but not one of the main 21.8 20.1 23.5 cause Air pollution is one of the main causes of health 43.3 41.2 45.4 problems 66 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.2.8 Household usage of transports types within urban cities in Mongolia Confidence interval Confidence interval Times a week household uses Mean (95%) % (95%) transports within the city Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Private car 1.3 1.2 1.4 29.5 27.6 31.4 Taxi 0.6 0.6 0.7 14.3 12.8 15.8 Public transport 2.5 2.3 2.7 56.2 54.1 58.3 Total 4.5 4.3 4.7 100.0 Table C.2.9 Open-ended contingent valuation questions Mean WTP (1) Protest Confidence interval Confidence interval Open-ended Valid zeros All (95%) Valid (95%) question answers answers Lower Upper answers(2) Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Answers as 874 42 23,775.1 21,752.6 25,797.6 24,917.6 22,827.7 27,007.6 given Inconsistent zeros removed based 858 42 24,197.8 22,150.0 26,245.6 25,382.3 23,265.8 27,498.8 on the response to the SD question (2) Note: SD stands for “single-dichotomous”. (1) Tugrugs per year during five years. (2) Protest removed. (3) Sixteen “zeros” were considered inconsistent when the respondent answered “Yes” to the bid offered in the single dichotomous question and then stated in the open-ended questions that her/ his maximum WTP is “zero”. The “yes” answer to the single dichotomous question implies that the respondent has a positive WTP and thus answering “zero” as maximum WTP to the open- ended question is considered to be an inconsistent answer and is removed from the sample. 67 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.2.10 Attitudinal questions about the contingent valuation single-dichotomous question Level of disagreement/agreement Does not Totally Dis- Totally with the following statements (1 Agree apply / agree agree disagree ‘Totally agree’, 2 ‘Agree’, 3 ‘Does not sure Mean n not apply/not sure’, 4 ‘Disagree’ and 5 ‘Totally disagree’) % % % % % Deciding my answer to [the single-dichotomous question] was 10 26 11 41 12 3.2 916 difficult I was sure about my answer to 35 60 5 1 0 1.7 916 [the single-dichotomous question] Table C.3.1 Livestock herders’ (1) attitudes and opinions about herding and grazing issues in Mongolia Level of disagreement/ Does not Totally agreement with the following Totally Dis- Confidence Agree apply / dis- Mean statements (1 ‘Totally agree’, agree agree interval (95%) not sure agree 2 ‘Agree’, 3 ‘Does not apply/ not sure’, 4 ‘Disagree’ and 5 Lower Upper % % % % % % ‘Totally disagree’) bound bound Although there is variation from year to year, the condition of 51.0 46.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 1.6 those winter pastures I know is worse now than 10 years ago Although there is variation from year to year, the condition of those summer pastures I know 47.0 48.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.6 1.5 1.7 is worse now than 10 years ago Water for livestock is less available now than 10 years 43.0 49.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 1.8 ago The composition of the national 5.0 37.0 24.0 30.0 5.0 2.9 2.8 3.0 herd is appropriate Soum authorities should determine the grazing patterns 9.0 26.0 12.0 44.0 8.0 3.2 3.1 3.2 of the herders Otor movements have no place 30.0 57.0 5.0 8.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 in the modern world There are so many livestock today that they are damaging 22.0 57.0 6.0 14.0 1.0 2.2 2.1 2.2 the pastures Hay and fodder should be 22.0 66.0 7.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 produced by community groups Trespassing on winter pastures 45.0 51.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 1.7 is worse than 10 years ago (1) n = 660 for the livestock herders subsample. 68 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.3.2 Characteristics of livestock herders movements in Mongolia Confidence interval (95%) % Class Lower bound Upper bound Someone in livestock herder household moved with 100.0 their animals at least once in the past year Yes, all members of the households 76.7 73.5 79.9 Yes, some members of the households 11.5 9.1 13.9 No 11.8 9.3 14.3 Kind of animal movement in the past year (for those 100.0 moving with their animals) Ordinary 79.2 75.9 82.5 Otor 5.7 3.8 7.6 Ordinary and otor 15.1 12.2 18.0 Livestock herders use trucks to move their belongings 100.0 (for those moving with their animals) Yes 91.4 89.1 93.7 No 8.6 6.3 10.9 All/part of livestock herder household moved with their 100.0 animals in the past in otor movements Yes 23.2 20.0 26.4 No 76.8 73.6 80.0 Times per year all/part of livestock herder household 4.7 4.4 5.0 move with their animals Kilometers per year all/part of livestock herder 91.9 83.3 100.5 household does while moving with their animals Last year all/part of livestock herder’s household 2,007 2,006 2,007 moved with their animals in otor movements 69 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.3.3 Livestock herder perceptions about sufficiency of pastures, hay and fodder provisions, wells and animal pens in winter-spring and in autumn-summer (percentages) Sufficient Average Not sufficient Sufficiency In: Confidence Confidence Confidence of: interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) % % % Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound bound bound Winter, 15.0 12.3 17.7 42.0 38.2 45.8 43.0 39.2 46.8 Spring Pastures Autumn, 34.0 30.4 37.6 44.0 40.2 47.8 22.0 18.8 25.2 Summer Winter, 12.0 9.5 14.5 27.0 23.6 30.4 61.0 57.3 64.7 Hay and Spring fodder Autumn, 23.0 19.8 26.2 35.0 31.4 38.6 42.0 38.2 45.8 Summer Winter, 27.0 23.6 30.4 30.0 26.5 33.5 42.0 38.2 45.8 Spring Wells Autumn, 35.0 31.4 38.6 31.0 27.5 34.5 33.0 29.4 36.6 Summer Winter, 69.0 65.5 72.5 21.0 17.9 24.1 10.0 7.7 12.3 Animal Spring pens Autumn, 67.0 63.4 70.6 21.0 17.9 24.1 11.0 8.6 13.4 Summer Table C.3.4 Livestock own possession of pastures, wells, shelters and corrals, and houses at winter camps in Mongolia (percentages) Livestock herders Own Possess/use Empty own/possess Confidence Confidence Confidence some of the interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) following % % % Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound bound bound Winter and spring 1.0 0.2 1.8 75.0 71.7 78.3 24.0 20.7 27.3 pasture Summer and 1.0 0.2 1.8 68.0 64.4 71.6 31.0 27.5 34.5 autumn pasture Wells 7.0 5.1 8.9 43.0 39.2 46.8 50.0 46.2 53.8 Livestock shelters 44.0 40.2 47.8 46.0 42.2 49.8 10.0 7.7 12.3 and corrals House at winter 24.0 20.7 27.3 20.0 16.9 23.1 56.0 52.2 59.8 camp 70 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.3.5 Livestock herder perceptions about natural environment and weather changes in the last decade in Mongolia (percentages) The following Declined Not changed Improved items have [declined/ Confidence Confidence Confidence not changed/ interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) improved] in the % % % last decade Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound bound bound Plant composition 97.0 95.7 98.3 3.0 1.7 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pasture yield 96.0 94.5 97.5 4.0 2.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Weather (Winter, 94.0 92.2 95.8 6.0 4.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spring) Weather (Summer, 79.0 75.9 82.1 20.0 16.9 23.1 1.0 0.2 1.8 Autumn) Rivers, springs, streams (Winter, 92.0 89.9 94.1 8.0 5.9 10.1 1.0 0.2 1.8 Spring) Rivers, springs, streams (Summer, 88.0 85.5 90.5 11.0 8.6 13.4 1.0 0.2 1.8 Autumn) Table C.3.6 Activities and organization of livestock herders in Mongolia Confidence interval (95%) % Class Lower bound Upper bound Livestock production activities with the highest 100.0 priority to livestock herders To improve livestock breed 54.8 51.0 58.6 To improve livestock productivity 22.7 19.5 25.9 To improve livestock health 16.2 13.4 19.0 To increase livestock number 4.2 2.7 5.7 To ease the labor in animal husbandry 0.8 0.1 1.5 To own pasture 0.6 0.0 1.2 To own well 0.3 0.0 0.7 To purchase machinery/equipment 0.3 0.0 0.7 Livestock herder belongs to a herder’s group 100.0 Yes 8.5 6.4 10.6 No 91.5 89.4 93.6 71 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Livestock herder think that belonging to a herders 100.0 group is Very important 3.6 0.0 8.5 Somewhat important 0.0 0.0 0.0 About average 17.9 7.9 27.9 Not very important 69.6 57.6 81.6 Not important at all 8.9 1.4 16.4 Livestock herder produced hay and/or fodder last 100.0 year Yes, alone 49.2 45.4 53.0 Yes, as part of a herders’ group 2.4 1.2 3.6 No 48.3 44.5 52.1 Confidence interval (95%) % Class Lower bound Upper bound Number of members that form the group of 11.3 8.7 13.8 herders (n = 56) Amount of hay/fodder produced last season 4.3 3.6 4.9 (tons) (n = 341) 72 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.3.7 Animals losses for livestock herders in the last big dzud (2001-2002) Confidence interval (95%) % Class Lower Upper bound bound Livestock herder that lost animals in the last big dzud 100.0 (2001-2002) Yes 71.1 67.6 74.6 No 28.9 25.4 32.4 Confidence interval (95%) Mean Class Lower Upper bound bound Number of animals lost in the last big dzud (2001- 2002) Horses (n = 308) 25.0 21.9 28.1 Female (n =296) 19.7 16.6 22.7 Young (n = 273) 27.6 23.1 32.2 Cattle (n = 307) 32.3 28.6 36.0 Female (n = 298) 24.2 20.8 27.7 Young (n = 282) 31.1 26.7 35.6 Camels (n = 209) 3.0 1.1 5.0 Female (n = 201) 1.9 0.2 3.6 Young (n = 201) 1.8 0.2 3.4 Sheep (n = 401) 26.8 24.5 29.2 Female (n = 375) 17.7 15.5 20.0 Young (n = 369) 28.7 25.5 32.0 Goats (n = 430) 29.2 27.0 31.4 Female (n = 397) 18.8 16.8 20.7 Young (n = 399) 32.4 29.1 35.7 73 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.3.8 Insurance systems for livestock herders in Mongolia (percentages) Confidence interval % (95%) Class Lower Upper bound bound Livestock herder has some of his/her animals covered by 100.0 some kind of insurance system Yes 3.0 1.7 4.3 No 97.0 95.7 98.3 Type of insurance system used by livestock herders (n = 20) 100.0 Index based livestock insurance 90.0 76.9 103.1 Other (non specified) 10.0 0.0 23.1 Reasons for not having any type of insurance (n = 640) 100.0 Lack of information 43.1 39.3 46.9 Lack of financial opportunities 31.3 27.7 34.9 I am not interested in insurance 17.3 14.4 20.2 Do not trust insurance company 7.0 5.0 9.0 There is no insurance company 0.8 0.1 1.5 Small number of livestock 0.5 0.0 1.0 74 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.4.1 Attitudes and opinions about natural resources issues in Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar sample Level of disagreement/ Does not Totally Totally Dis- Confidence agreement with the following Agree apply / dis- agree agree interval (95%) statements (1 ‘Totally agree’, not sure agree Mean 2 ‘Agree’, 3 ‘Does not apply/ Lower Upper not sure’, 4 ‘Disagree’ and 5 % % % % % bound bound ‘Totally disagree’) Traditionally Mongolians respected Nature and the 41.8 46.9 6.8 3.9 0.5 1.7 1.7 1.8 Environment Today Mongolians respect 2.6 9.5 27.1 39.6 21.2 3.7 3.6 3.7 Nature and the Environment Today rural Mongolians respect Nature and the 8.0 39.3 32.0 18.0 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 Environment more than urban Mongolians Today poor Mongolians respect Nature and the 3.8 21.1 32.5 36.8 5.8 3.2 3.1 3.3 Environment more than rich Mongolians Today Mongolian politicians respect Nature and the 0.4 4.5 18.9 45.6 30.6 4.0 4.0 4.1 Environment Community groups are a good way to manage natural 8.1 45.4 30.3 13.3 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.6 resources Pasture should be privatized 2.7 14.6 17.9 39.8 24.9 3.7 3.6 3.8 Forests will be managed better by community groups 3.9 36.5 39.3 17.0 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.8 than by the government Forests will be managed better by commercial loggers 5.6 38.8 36.1 17.4 2.2 2.7 2.7 2.8 than by the government The licensing and management of forests/ 47.1 42.9 6.7 2.6 0.8 1.7 1.6 1.7 wildlife/mining is made difficult because of corruption I want marmots and deer and other animals to be abundant again and would be prepared 45.1 52.0 1.5 1.1 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 to not hunt/eat them for some years to allow them to recover 75 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia There would be more wild animals if commercial trade 45.4 49.9 2.3 1.5 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 were stopped Forest fires in my soum have become worse in the last 10 29.8 57.9 5.6 6.3 0.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 years There has been an increase in illegal logging activities in 43.7 52.4 2.0 1.9 0.1 1.6 1.6 1.7 my soum Reforestations (planting 53.4 45.5 0.7 0.4 0.0 1.5 1.4 1.5 trees) should be promoted It is acceptable for people to fell pine trees to collect their 45.9 49.7 1.6 2.5 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 nuts Mongolia Special Protected 2.5 9.6 29.1 36.9 21.8 3.7 3.6 3.7 Areas are well managed Table C.4.2 Attitudes and opinions about natural resources issues in Mongolia. Aimag centers (1) sample Level of disagreement/ Does not Totally Dis- Totally Confidence agreement with the Agree apply /not agree agree disagree interval (95%) following statements (1 sure Mean ‘Totally agree’, 2 ‘Agree’, 3 ‘Does not apply/not Lower Upper % % % % % sure’, 4 ‘Disagree’ and 5 bound bound ‘Totally disagree’) Traditionally Mongolians respected Nature and 34.2 57.9 3.9 3.8 0.3 1.8 1.7 1.8 the Environment Today Mongolians respect Nature and the 1.3 15.4 20.8 52.9 9.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 Environment Today rural Mongolians respect Nature and the 5.7 57.8 21.7 13.9 0.9 2.5 2.4 2.5 Environment more than urban Mongolians Today poor Mongolians respect Nature and the 2.8 36.0 26.9 31.3 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 Environment more than rich Mongolians Today Mongolian politicians respect 0.6 11.0 21.4 53.4 13.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 Nature and the Environment 76 Appendix C. Additional Tables Community groups are a good way to manage 4.0 53.5 26.9 14.4 1.3 2.6 2.5 2.6 natural resources Pasture should be 1.7 20.0 14.6 50.8 12.9 3.5 3.5 3.6 privatized Forests will be managed better by community 2.6 43.6 30.6 21.3 1.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 groups than by the government Forests will be managed better by commercial 4.7 48.9 26.3 19.1 1.0 2.6 2.6 2.7 loggers than by the government The licensing and management of forests/ wildlife/mining is made 24.1 59.8 9.9 5.6 0.6 2.0 1.9 2.0 difficult because of corruption I want marmots and deer and other animals to be abundant again and would be prepared to not 31.5 64.0 2.6 1.7 0.2 1.7 1.7 1.8 hunt/eat them for some years to allow them to recover There would be more wild animals if 28.5 64.3 3.6 3.5 0.2 1.8 1.8 1.9 commercial trade were stopped Forest fires in my soum have become worse in 7.9 48.5 9.2 28.8 5.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 the last 10 years There has been an increase in illegal 25.1 68.9 2.6 3.2 0.2 1.8 1.8 1.9 logging activities in my soum Reforestations (planting trees) should be 45.7 53.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 1.6 1.5 1.6 promoted It is acceptable for people to fell pine trees 35.3 61.3 1.3 2.1 0.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 to collect their nuts Mongolia Special Protected Areas are well 2.1 19.9 31.1 40.7 6.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 managed (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 77 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.4.3 Attitudes and opinions about natural resources issues in Mongolia. Rural sample Level of disagreement/ Does agreement with the not Totally Totally Confidence following statements Agree apply Disagree agree disagree interval (95%) (1 ‘Totally agree’, 2 /not Mean ‘Agree’, 3 ‘Does not sure apply/not sure’, 4 ‘Disagree’ and 5 ‘Totally Lower Upper % % % % % disagree’) bound bound Traditionally Mongolians respected 46.3 47.0 3.4 2.7 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 Nature and the Environment Today Mongolians respect Nature and the 2.9 22.0 18.9 44.2 12.0 3.4 3.3 3.5 Environment Today rural Mongolians respect Nature and the 18.9 58.8 14.4 6.7 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 Environment more than urban Mongolians Today poor Mongolians respect Nature and the 8.3 39.3 26.1 24.5 1.8 2.7 2.6 2.8 Environment more than rich Mongolians Today Mongolian politicians respect 1.4 15.1 25.6 42.9 14.9 3.5 3.5 3.6 Nature and the Environment Community groups are a good way to manage 5.9 49.0 30.0 13.8 1.3 2.6 2.5 2.6 natural resources Pasture should be 5.8 15.7 9.6 49.2 19.7 3.6 3.5 3.7 privatized Forests will be managed better by 3.2 42.5 36.1 16.8 1.4 2.7 2.6 2.8 community groups than by the government Forests will be managed better by 6.9 46.6 29.3 16.3 0.8 2.6 2.5 2.6 commercial loggers than by the government 78 Appendix C. Additional Tables The licensing and management of forests/ wildlife/mining is made 21.8 55.9 16.7 5.0 0.6 2.1 2.0 2.1 difficult because of corruption I want marmots and deer and other animals to be abundant again and would be prepared 39.9 55.4 3.4 1.3 0.0 1.7 1.6 1.7 to not hunt/eat them for some years to allow them to recover There would be more wild animals if 37.3 58.0 2.2 2.1 0.3 1.7 1.6 1.8 commercial trade were stopped Forest fires in my soum have become worse in 3.0 27.2 16.8 37.8 15.1 3.3 3.3 3.4 the last 10 years There has been an increase in illegal 31.3 58.0 5.6 4.2 1.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 logging activities in my soum Reforestations (planting trees) should be 51.8 46.3 1.6 0.2 0.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 promoted It is acceptable for people to fell pine trees 42.6 52.1 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 to collect their nuts Mongolia Special Protected Areas are 4.5 26.8 28.2 34.0 6.6 3.1 3.0 3.2 well managed 79 Table C.5.1 Wildlife hunting gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. Ulaanbaatar sample 80 Average unit price Consumption during Consumption during the Mean consumption (unit) during Total value (tugrugs) of unit for the purchased the past 12 months: past month the past month coming from: consumed meat during Class quantities % of % of Gifts or Own Past 12 Mean Total Mean Total Purchases Mean (Tugrug/kg) Past month HHs HHs free production months Marmot kg 4.0 3.2 117.7 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Gazelle kg 1.9 9.0 153.1 0.2 13.8 27.5 - 13.8 - - n. a. n. a. Roe deer kg 0.2 17.0 34.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Red deer kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Brown bear kg 0.2 15.3 30.5 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Wild pig kg 0.5 3.5 17.5 0.2 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 - 5,000.0 87,500.0 10,000.0 Reindeer kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Saiga Antelope kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Wild goat kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Wild sheep kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Wolf kg 0.5 1.9 9.5 0.1 5.0 5.0 - 5.0 - - n. a. n. a. Other (1) kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 MEAT kg 6.8 5.8 362.3 0.5 6.9 34.5 1.0 8.4 0.0 n. a. n. a. n. a.: not available Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Table C.5.2 Fish gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. Ulaanbaatar sample Average Mean consumption (unit) unit price Consumption during the Consumption during Total value (tugrugs) of during the past month for the unit past 12 months: the past month consumed fish during Class coming from: purchased quantities % of % of Pur- Gifts or Own Mean Past 12 Past Mean Total Mean Total HHs HHs chases free production (Tugrug/kg) months month White fish kg 15.1 4.5 621.7 2.6 2.6 61.9 2.3 3.3 2.5 4,047.1 2,516,056.5 250,512.9 Lenok kg 1.2 3.0 33.5 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Taimen kg 0.5 4.8 24.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Hairuus kg 1.9 4.9 83.5 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Pike kg 0.7 1.3 8.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Purch kg 0.3 4.3 13.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Catfish kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Coregeneus l. kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Pild kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Chepak kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Sazan kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 (1) Other kg 1.9 3.6 60.6 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 FISH kg 19.8 4.7 844.3 2.6 2.6 61.9 2.3 3.3 2.5 n. a. n. a. n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Appendix C. Additional Tables 81 Table C.5.3 Wild fruits and nuts gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. Ulaanbaatar sample 82 Average unit Mean consumption (unit) Consumption during the Consumption during price for the Total value (tugrugs) of during the past month unit past 12 months: the past month purchased consumed fruits/nuts during Class coming from: quantities % of % of Pur- Gifts or Own Mean Past 12 Mean Total Mean Total Past month HHs HHs chases free production (Tugrug/kg) months Cranberry kg 30.1 2.6 706.9 4.8 1.5 66.5 1.5 1.3 - 5,268.3 3,724,156.1 350,341.5 Blueberry kg 18.0 3.4 567.1 3.6 1.7 55.0 1.7 1.0 2.0 3,878.6 2,199,537.9 213,321.4 Sea-backhorn kg 56.6 3.4 1,754.3 15.9 1.9 272.5 1.9 1.7 1.3 5,316.1 9,325,961.2 1,448,625.9 Strawberry kg 6.8 1.8 111.6 0.9 1.6 12.6 1.6 - - 3,471.4 387,411.4 43,640.8 Currant kg 6.3 2.3 134.8 0.3 1.3 4.0 1.3 - - 3,833.3 516,733.3 15,333.3 Blackcurrant kg 4.8 2.3 100.2 0.4 0.6 2.5 0.6 - - 4,200.0 420,840.0 10,500.0 Dollogon kg 1.3 1.2 14.3 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Moil kg 5.5 1.2 60.6 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 2,000.0 121,200.0 2,000.0 Nokhoin h. kg 4.6 1.5 62.6 1.2 0.8 9.2 1.1 0.2 0.5 4,166.7 260,833.3 38,333.3 Toshloi kg 0.9 0.8 6.4 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Pine nuts kg 10.6 1.5 147.7 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - 1,600.0 236,320.0 800.0 Mushrooms kg 8.8 1.3 109.3 1.0 0.4 3.8 0.4 - - 2,887.5 315,603.8 10,972.5 Choniin eleg kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Tehiin sheeg kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Ulaalzgana kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Wild leek kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia (1) Other kg 0.2 3.5 7.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 FRUIT/NUTS kg 69.7 5.9 3,782.8 18.9 2.5 427.6 2.6 1.4 1.0 n. a. n. a. n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Table C.5.4 Wildlife hunting gathering and consumption during the past 12 months by Mongolian households (mean consumption). Ulaanbaatar sample by age and income categories Mean consumption during the past 12 months: Age category Income category Class unit No 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 <75,000 75,000- 150,000- <30 years direct >225,000 Tg years years years years Tg 149,999 Tg 224,999 Tg income Marmot kg 2.9 3.1 4.0 1.2 5.0 0.4 2.0 3.0 1.1 3.9 Gazelle kg 5.4 7.3 11.6 15.0 - 3.0 - 13.5 4.5 13.3 Roe deer kg 17.0 - - - - - - - 30.0 4.0 Red deer kg - - - - - - - - - - Brown bear kg - - 0.5 30.0 - - - - - 15.3 Wild pig kg - 2.0 2.3 1.0 10.0 - - - - 3.5 Reindeer kg - - - - - - - - - - Saiga Antelope kg - - - - - - - - - - Wild goat kg - - - - - - - - - - Wild sheep kg - - - - - - - - - - Wolf kg 2.3 - 0.5 - - - - 0.5 5.0 1.3 (1) Other kg - - - - - - - - - - MEAT kg n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Appendix C. Additional Tables 83 Table C.5.5 Fish gathering and consumption during the past 12 months by Mongolian households (mean consumption). Ulaanbaatar 84 sample by age and income categories Mean consumption during the past 12 months: Age category Income category Class unit No 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 <75,000 75,000- 150,000- >225,000 <30 years direct years years years years Tg 149,999 Tg 224,999 Tg Tg income White fish kg 2.7 4.5 4.4 6.7 4.1 2.0 0.5 2.5 3.5 5.1 Lenok kg 7.5 2.0 1.2 2.8 2.0 - - - 6.0 2.4 Taimen kg 7.5 - 3.0 - - - - - 2.0 6.7 Hairuus kg 4.4 4.5 8.3 3.2 - - - 4.0 6.0 4.9 Pike kg - 1.0 1.3 1.0 2.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.5 Purch kg - - 1.5 10.0 - - - - 1.0 6.0 Catfish kg - - - - - - - - - - Coregeneus l. kg - - - - - - - - - - Pild kg - - - - - - - - - - Chepak kg - - - - - - - - - - Sazan kg - - - - - - - - - - (1) Other kg 1.7 3.8 2.4 8.5 - - 5.0 3.0 1.3 4.6 FISH kg n. a.: not available (1) Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia The respondent did not know the name of these items. Table C.5.6 Wild fruits and nuts gathering and consumption during the past 12 months by Mongolian households (mean consumption). Ulaanbaatar sample by age and income categories Mean consumption during the past 12 months: Class unit Age category Income category <30 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 No direct 75,000- 150,000- <75,000 Tg >225,000 Tg years years years years years income 149,999 Tg 224,999 Tg Cranberry kg 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.2 1.8 1.8 2.8 Blueberry kg 2.8 4.2 4.1 2.5 3.2 1.5 1.1 3.7 2.0 3.8 Sea-backhorn kg 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.0 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.7 Strawberry kg 1.5 1.6 1.4 2.9 1.9 1.5 0.6 1.9 1.7 2.0 Currant kg 2.1 2.8 2.5 1.9 1.3 1.0 0.8 2.8 1.6 2.6 Blackcurrant kg 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.2 0.5 1.6 1.4 3.7 2.3 Dollogon kg - 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.3 - 0.7 4.0 - 1.0 Moil kg 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.4 Nokhoin h. kg 1.4 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.5 - - 1.5 1.0 1.6 Toshloi kg 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.3 - 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.3 1.5 Pine nuts kg 1.9 1.2 1.1 2.4 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.6 2.1 1.4 Mushrooms kg 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.2 1.4 1.0 - 1.4 1.3 1.4 Choniin eleg kg - - - - - - - - - - Tehiin sheeg kg - - - - - - - - - - Ulaalzgana kg - - - - - - - - - - Wild leek kg - - - - - - - - - - (1) Other kg - - 2.0 5.0 - - - - - 3.5 FRUIT/NUTS kg n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Appendix C. Additional Tables 85 Table C.5.7 Wildlife hunting gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. Aimag centers (1) sample 86 Average Mean consumption (unit) unit price Consumption during Consumption during Total value (tugrugs) of during the past month coming for the the past 12 months: the past month consumed meat during unit from: purchased Class quantities Mean % of % of Pur- Gifts or Own Past 12 Mean Total Mean Total (Tugrug/ Past month HHs HHs chases free production months kg) Marmot kg 4.7 5.1 306.1 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Gazelle kg 5.4 54.4 3,696.0 1.6 12.9 257.0 14.6 11.4 15.0 10,985.7 40,603,200.0 2,823,328.6 Roe deer kg 0.4 22.7 113.5 0.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 - - 1,500.0 170,250.0 4,500.0 Red deer kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0   Brown bear kg 0.1 2.0 2.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Wild pig kg 0.8 3.2 32.2 0.4 3.8 19.0 - 3.8 - n. a. Reindeer kg 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Saiga kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Antelope Wild goat kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Wild sheep kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Wolf kg 0.3 1.9 7.6 0.1 3.0 3.0 - - 3.0 - n. a. n. a. Other (2) kg 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 MEAT kg 10.6 31.1 4,162.6 2.1 10.8 282.0 13.1 9.0 16.5 n. a. n. a. Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia n. a.: not available (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Table C.5.8 Fish gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. Aimag centers (1) sample Average unit Mean consumption (unit) Consumption during Consumption during price for the Total value (tugrugs) of during the past month unit the past 12 months: the past month purchased consumed fish during Class coming from: quantities % of % of Pur- Gifts or Own Mean Past 12 Mean Total Mean Total Past month HHs HHs chases free production (Tugrug/kg) months White fish kg 5.8 4.5 334.3 0.8 1.6 15.5 1.6 1.3 - 3,285.7 1,098,414.3 50,928.6 Lenok kg 2.5 5.0 158.5 0.5 1.7 10.0 2.0 1.7 1.0 3,750.0 594,375.0 37,500.0 Taimen kg 0.4 3.9 19.5 0.2 0.8 1.5 0.8 - - 4,750.0 92,625.0 7,125.0 Hairuus kg 1.8 9.5 218.8 0.6 3.6 25.5 3.4 2.5 - 1,445.0 316,166.0 36,847.5 Pike kg 0.6 5.3 42.5 0.1 0.5 0.5 - 0.5 - n. a. n. a. Purch kg 0.5 2.6 15.5 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Catfish kg 0.6 2.0 14.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Coregeneus l. kg 0.2 5.0 10.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Pild kg 0.4 13.2 66.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Chepak kg 0.4 4.6 23.0 0.2 6.0 18.0 - 6.0 - - n. a. n. a. Sazan kg 0.2 2.0 6.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 (2) Other kg 0.6 3.0 24.3 0.2 4.6 9.2 4.6 - - 3,250.0 n. a. n. a. FISH kg 12.6 5.8 932.4 2.4 2.7 80.2 2.6 3.0 1.0 n. a. n. a. n. a.: not available (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Appendix C. Additional Tables 87 Table C.5.9 Wild fruits and nuts gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. Aimag centers (1) sample 88 Consumption Mean consumption (unit) Average unit price Consumption during Total value (tugrugs) of during the past during the past month for the purchased the past 12 months: consumed fruits/nuts during Class unit month coming from: quantities % of % of Pur- Gifts Own Past 12 Mean Total Mean Total Mean (Tugrug/kg) Past month HHs HHs chases or free production months Cranberry kg 8.8 4.3 474.8 1.0 2.6 33.2 2.4 - 3.5 3,227.3 1,532,309.1 107,145.5 Blueberry kg 14.5 7.2 1,325.2 1.2 2.7 40.0 2.5 3.0 3.3 3,490.9 4,626,152.7 139,636.4 Sea- kg 34.1 4.3 1,844.7 10.4 1.8 237.9 1.8 1.6 2.9 4,553.4 8,399,746.0 1,083,265.3 backhorn Strawberry kg 7.4 4.4 407.7 0.6 1.8 14.0 1.0 2.0 3.5 3,560.0 1,451,412.0 49,840.0 Currant kg 5.8 2.5 186.4 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Blackcurrant kg 9.7 6.5 798.9 0.7 2.9 26.5 3.0 1.0 3.4 2,750.0 2,196,975.0 72,875.0 Dollogon kg 1.5 1.7 32.9 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - 4,600.0 151,340.0 4,600.0 Moil kg 6.9 3.2 275.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - - n. a. n. a. Nokhoin h. kg 7.7 1.9 185.2 1.3 0.6 9.5 0.7 0.5 0.3 2,430.0 450,036.0 23,085.0 Toshloi kg 1.6 1.8 35.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - 5,000.0 176,500.0 1,000.0 Pine nuts kg 7.6 2.8 267.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - 2,400.0 641,040.0 1,200.0 Mushrooms kg 3.2 1.1 42.7 0.6 0.4 2.9 0.4 0.1 - 7,775.0 331,992.5 22,547.5 Choniin eleg kg 0.1 5.0 5.0 0.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 - 2500 12,500.0 5,000.0 Tehiin sheeg kg 0.2 5.0 15.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Ulaalzgana kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Wild leek kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 (2) Other kg 0.2 5.1 10.2 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 FRUIT/NUTS kg 50.6 9.2 5,906.1 13.0 2.2 368.7 2.3 1.3 2.8 n. a. n. a. n. a.: not available (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Table C.5.10 Wildlife hunting gathering and consumption during the past 12 months by Mongolian households (mean consumption). Aimag centers sample by age and income categories Mean consumption during the past 12 months: Class unit Age category Income category <30 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 No direct <75,000 75,000- 150,000- >225,000 years years years years years income Tg 149,999 Tg 224,999 Tg Tg Marmot kg 9.2 5.5 3.8 3.1 4.0 - 12.6 6.8 3.1 4.5 Gazelle kg 53.3 78.4 44.8 52.8 19.4 50.7 45.0 68.5 60.2 48.6 Roe deer kg 2.8 5.0 3.0 100.0 - - - - 100.0 3.4 Red deer kg - - - - - - - - - - Brown bear kg - 2.0 - - - - - - - 2.0 Wild pig kg 1.6 4.2 2.7 - - - - - - 3.2 Reindeer kg - 0.2 - - - - 0.2 - - - Saiga Antelope kg - - - - - - - - - - Wild goat kg - - - - - - - - - - Wild sheep kg - - - - - - - - - - Wolf kg - 3.0 0.8 - - - - 0.1 3.0 2.3 Other (1) kg - - 5.0 - - - - - - 5.0 MEAT kg n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Appendix C. Additional Tables 89 Table C.5.11 Fish gathering and consumption during the past 12 months by Mongolian households (mean consumption). Aimag 90 centers sample by age and income categories Mean consumption during the past 12 months: Age category Income category Class unit <30 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 No direct <75,000 75,000- 150,000- >225,000 Tg years years years years years income Tg 149,999 Tg 224,999 Tg White fish kg 7.7 4.8 3.1 3.6 4.5 - 5.0 2.4 5.3 5.0 Lenok kg 5.0 4.5 6.4 3.4 4.5 15.0 2.0 1.8 8.2 4.2 Taimen kg 3.0 - 4.1 - - - - - - 3.9 Hairuus kg 2.0 25.8 3.9 4.0 3.0 - - - 3.2 11.7 Pike kg 6.5 5.3 3.0 - - - - - 10.0 4.6 Purch kg 2.8 2.0 3.0 - - - - - - 2.6 Catfish kg 1.5 1.0 5.0 - 2.0 - 3.0 - 2.0 1.8 Coregeneus l. kg 5.0 - - 5.0 - - - - - 5.0 Pild kg 50.0 3.0 2.0 - 8.0 - - 26.0 3.0 5.5 Chepak kg - 6.0 6.0 2.5 - - 5.7 3.0 3.0 - Sazan kg 3.0 2.0 - - 1.0 - 2.5 - - 1.0 (1) Other kg 1.0 1.5 5.5 3.1 - - 2.0 0.8 - 5.0 FISH kg n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.5.12 Wild fruits and nuts gathering and consumption during the past 12 months by Mongolian households (mean consumption). Aimag centers sample by age and income categories Mean consumption during the past 12 months: Age category Income category Class unit <30 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 No direct <75,000 75,000- 150,000- >225,000 years years years years years income Tg 149,999 Tg 224,999 Tg Tg Cranberry kg 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.9 1.3 5.0 1.3 5.2 4.5 4.3 Blueberry kg 4.1 7.1 7.6 10.6 5.6 7.8 6.6 6.4 8.2 7.4 Sea-backhorn kg 3.4 4.6 3.6 5.3 4.8 6.2 3.7 2.9 4.6 4.7 Strawberry kg 4.0 6.5 3.4 4.1 2.0 30.0 3.0 1.5 8.5 3.5 Currant kg 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.6 2.2 5.0 - 3.2 2.2 2.2 Blackcurrant kg 3.6 4.0 4.6 14.5 5.6 - 16.0 4.1 4.5 7.8 Dollogon kg 1.0 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.6 - 3.0 0.5 2.5 1.9 Moil kg 3.0 3.3 2.3 5.9 1.1 10.0 4.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 Nokhoin h. kg 1.2 2.1 2.0 2.5 1.2 4.2 3.8 1.4 2.1 1.7 Toshloi kg 0.8 1.0 2.0 3.5 1.4 - 2.0 1.8 1.1 2.3 Pine nuts kg 2.7 3.5 2.0 3.2 0.6 - 16.9 2.3 1.6 2.5 Mushrooms kg 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.2 1.2 0.8 Choniin eleg kg - - 5.0 - - - - - - 5.0 Tehiin sheeg kg - - 5.0 5.0 - - - - 5.0 5.0 Ulaalzgana kg - - - - - - - - - - Wild leek kg - - - - - - - - - - Other (1) kg - - 0.2 10.0 - - - 5.1 - - FRUIT/NUTS kg n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Appendix C. Additional Tables 91 Table C.5.13 Wildlife hunting gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. Rural sample 92 Average Total value unit price Consumption during the Consumption during Mean consumption (unit) during the (tugrugs) of for the past 12 months: the past month past month coming from: consumed meat unit purchased Class during quantities Past % of % of Gifts or Own Mean Past Mean Total Mean Total Purchases 12 HHs HHs free production (Tugrug/kg) month months Marmot kg 4.0 10.1 251.5 0.2 6.0 6.0 - 6.0 - - n. a. n. a. Gazelle kg 5.1 62.2 1,989.0 0.2 18.0 18.0 - 18.0 - - n. a. n. a. Roe deer kg 0.6 34.5 138.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Red deer kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Brown kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 bear Wild pig kg 0.5 65.3 196.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Reindeer kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Saiga kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Antelope Wild goat kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Wild kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 sheep Wolf kg 0.5 2.7 8.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 (1) Other kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia MEAT kg 10.4 39.7 2,582.5 0.3 12.0 24.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 n. a. n. a. n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Table C.5.14 Fish gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. Rural sample Average Total value unit price Consumption during the Consumption during Mean consumption (unit) during the (tugrugs) of for the unit past 12 months: the past month past month coming from: consumed fish Class purchased during quantities % of % of Pur- Own Mean Past 12 Past Mean Total Mean Total Gifts or free HHs HHs chases production (Tugrug/kg) months month White fish kg 1.1 4.9 34.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Lenok kg 0.3 2.0 4.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Taimen kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Hairuus kg 0.3 5.0 10.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Pike kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Purch kg 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Catfish kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Coregeneus kg 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 l. Pild kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Chepak kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Sazan kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 (1) Other kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 FISH kg 1.9 4.5 54.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n. a. 0.0 n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Appendix C. Additional Tables 93 Table C.5.15 Wild fruits and nuts gathering and consumption by Mongolian households. Rural sample 94 Average unit Mean consumption (unit) Total value (tugrugs) of Consumption during the Consumption during price for the during the past month consumed fruits/nuts past 12 months: the past month purchased unit coming from: during Class quantities Gifts % of % of Pur- Own Mean Past 12 Mean Total Mean Total or Past month HHs HHs chases production (Tugrug/kg) months free Cranberry kg 1.1 8.7 61.2 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Blueberry kg 4.3 13.7 370.5 0.2 4.0 4.0 - - 4.0 - n. a. n. a. Sea-backhorn kg 10.3 2.7 175.9 1.3 1.6 13.0 1.7 1.0 2.0 4,333.3 762,233.3 56,333.3 Strawberry kg 5.3 4.6 153.4 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Currant kg 5.8 3.9 140.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Blackcurrant kg 4.3 2.5 67.1 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Dollogon kg 0.5 1.4 4.1 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Moil kg 1.3 4.5 36.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Nokhoin h. kg 2.7 2.6 44.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - 0.2 - n. a. n. a. Toshloi kg 2.9 2.2 39.5 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Pine nuts kg 3.4 18.0 378.8 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Mushrooms kg 1.6 0.6 5.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - - n. a. n. a. Choniin eleg kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 Tehiin sheeg kg 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Ulaalzgana kg 0.3 7.5 15.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - n. a. 0.0 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Wild leek kg 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 - - 3.0 - n. a. n. a. (1) Other kg 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 0.0 FRUIT/NUTS kg 24.5 9.8 1,495.2 1.9 1.7 20.3 1.4 1.0 2.3 n. a. n. a. n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Table C.5.16 Wildlife hunting gathering and consumption during the past 12 months by Mongolian households (mean consumption). Rural sample by age and income categories Mean consumption during the past 12 months: Age category Income category Class unit <30 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 No direct <75,000 75,000- 150,000- >225,000 years years years years years income Tg 149,999 Tg 224,999 Tg Tg Marmot kg 17.4 8.2 8.2 - 4.0 - 4.7 13.4 1.8 14.3 Gazelle kg 86.1 50.5 48.4 120.0 54.0 60.8 55.4 57.4 106.7 49.5 Roe deer kg 50.0 18.0 - - 20.0 - 40.0 19.0 - 60.0 Red deer kg - - - - - - - - - - Brown bear kg - - - - - - - - - - Wild pig kg 120.0 36.0 40.0 - - - 120.0 38.0 - - Reindeer kg - - - - - - - - - - Saiga kg - - - - - - - - - - Antelope Wild goat kg - - - - - - - - - - Wild sheep kg - - - - - - - - - - Wolf kg 3.0 2.5 - - - - 2.5 3.0 - - (1) Other kg - - - - - - - - - - MEAT kg n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Appendix C. Additional Tables 95 Table C 5.17 Fish gathering and consumption during the past 12 months by Mongolian households (mean consumption). Rural 96 sample by age and income categories Mean consumption during the past 12 months: Age category Income category Class unit <30 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 No direct <75,000 75,000- 150,000- >225,000 years years years years years income Tg 149,999 Tg 224,999 Tg Tg White fish kg - 4.9 - - - - 4.0 3.7 8.5 2.0 Lenok kg - 3.0 1.0 - - - 1.0 3.0 - - Taimen kg - - - - - - - - - - Hairuus kg - 2.0 8.0 - - - 2.0 - - 8.0 Pike kg - - - - - - - - - - Purch kg - 3.0 - - - - 3.0 - - - Catfish kg - - - - - - - - - - Coregeneus l. kg - - - - 3.0 - - 3.0 - - Pild kg - - - - - - - - - - Chepak kg - - - - - - - - - - Sazan kg - - - - - - - - - - (1) Other kg - - - - - - - - - - FISH kg n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.5.18 Wild fruits and nuts gathering and consumption during the past 12 months by Mongolian households (mean consumption). Rural sample by age and income categories Mean consumption during the past 12 months: Class unit Age category Income category <30 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 No direct <75,000 75,000- 150,000- >225,000 years years years years years income Tg 149,999 Tg 224,999 Tg Tg Cranberry kg 20.0 7.0 11.0 - 2.6 20.0 9.0 4.6 - 5.0 Blueberry kg 15.5 17.0 6.8 20.0 16.0 1.0 20.1 11.1 5.0 3.0 Sea-backhorn kg 2.0 3.0 3.9 4.5 1.8 1.0 3.3 2.7 2.7 2.6 Strawberry kg 3.0 7.4 3.3 5.3 3.6 1.2 6.4 5.1 4.8 2.2 Currant kg 2.4 3.1 3.7 3.3 7.7 2.0 4.7 2.0 7.5 1.0 Blackcurrant kg 2.6 2.4 1.7 1.5 4.3 - 2.3 3.4 1.6 2.6 Dollogon kg - 0.1 2.0 - - 1.0 3.0 - 0.1 - Moil kg 2.0 3.0 4.3 6.0 - 1.0 10.0 6.0 3.0 2.0 Nokhoin h. kg 0.5 6.9 1.3 1.1 2.8 0.3 0.5 2.7 2.0 5.5 Toshloi kg 2.8 2.4 1.3 1.7 3.3 - 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 Pine nuts kg 9.5 38.3 6.7 - - 0.6 49.6 3.3 0.7 1.0 Mushrooms kg - 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 - 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.3 Choniin eleg kg - - - - - - - - - - Tehiin sheeg kg - - 0.3 - - - 0.3 - - - Ulaalzgana kg - 5.0 10.0 - - - - 5.0 10.0 - Wild leek kg - - - 3.0 - - - 3.0 - - Other (1) kg - - - - - - - - - - FRUIT/NUTS kg n. a.: not available (1) The respondent did not know the name of these items. Appendix C. Additional Tables 97 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.6.1 Sources of energy used by households for lighting and other activities in Mongolia (percentages) Most frequently used for other Most frequently used for lighting (1) Source of activities (2) energy Aimag Ulaan- Aimag Ulaan- Rural National centers Rural National baatar centers (3) baatar (3) Electricity 99.8 96.5 6.1 62.9 96.1 83.4 3.0 57.3 Firewood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.7 Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dung/ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.6 compacted dung Charcoal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 materials Solar panels 0.1 1.1 74.2 28.9 0.0 0.6 35.4 13.8 Wind turbines 0.0 0.5 3.5 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.6 Others 0.0 0.2 8.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 Do not use/did not score as 0.1 1.7 8.2 3.6 3.9 14.1 56.6 26.6 frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (1) For the Aimag Centers subsample, as second most frequently used “Solar panels” accounts for 2.4% and “Others” accounts for 1.2%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. For the Rural subsample, as second most frequently used “Others” accounts for 7.5%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. For the National results, as second most frequently used “Others” accounts for 3.2%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. (2) For the Ulaanbaatar subsample, as second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 2.9%; as third most frequently used “Coal” accounts for 2.6%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second and third most frequently used). For the Aimag Centers subsample, as second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 2.1% and “Solar panels” accounts for 1.4%; as third most frequently used “Coal” accounts for 1.1%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second and third most frequently used). For the National results, as second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 1.6%; as third most frequently used “Coal” accounts for 1.3%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second and third most frequently used). (3) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 98 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.6.2 Sources of energy used by households for lighting and other activities in Mongolia (percentages). National results Most frequently used for Most frequently used for lighting (1) other activities (2) Source of energy Confidence interval Confidence interval (95%) (95%) % % Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Electricity 62.9 62.1 63.7 57.3 56.4 58.1 Firewood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 1.1 Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dung/compacted dung 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 1.0 Charcoal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled materials 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solar panels 28.9 27.6 30.2 13.8 12.3 15.2 Wind turbines 1.5 0.9 2.0 0.6 0.3 1.0 Others 3.1 2.3 3.9 0.2 0.9 0.5 Do not use/did not score as 3.6 2.7 4.4 26.6 24.9 28.2 frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 (1) As second most frequently used “Others” accounts for 3.2%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0%. (2) As second most frequently used “Firewood” accounts for 1.6%; as third most frequently used “Coal” accounts for 1.3%. The remaining sources of energy do not account for more than 1.0% in any of the previous cases (second and third most frequently used). 99 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.6.3 Fuel used by the household for heating, cooking and lighting during the past month and the past 12 months. National results Past month Past 12 months Confidence interval Confidence interval Class (95%) (95%) Mean Mean Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Electricity (unit: kw) 98.9 95.8 102.1 1,224.8 1,172.7 1,277.0 Firewood (unit: m3) 0.4 0.4 0.5 3.2 3.0 3.4 Coal (unit: tons) 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.5 1.4 1.5 Gas (unit: m )3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 Dung (unit: kg) 226.0 205.5 246.5 1,960.3 1,804.0 2,116.6 Compacted dung (unit: kg) 174.6 155.9 193.4 1,060.8 968.8 1,152.8 Charcoal (unit: kg) 3.0 0.0 6.5 12.9 0.0 26.5 Sawdust (unit: kg) 2.1 0.6 3.7 11.4 2.5 20.4 “Yonton” fuel (unit: liters) 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.1 0.0 8.9 Crop residues (unit: tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled tires (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 4.8 Recycled plastics (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 5.9 Recycled oil (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled papers (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.2 Sewer system (unit: kg) 162.2 122.2 202.3 1,613.3 1,196.9 2,029.7 Centralized heating (unit: kg) 227.7 164.8 290.6 1,816.3 1,304.9 2,327.7 Note: other fuels specified by respondents were “Candle”, “Khargana”, “Mixed coal and dung”, “Saw Dust”, “Shahmal” “Stove” and “Zag”. They do not account for more than 10 observations and are not included in this table. (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 100 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.6.4 Fuel used by the household for heating, cooking and lighting during the past month and the past 12 months. Ulaanbaatar sample Past month Past 12 months Confidence interval Confidence interval Class (95%) (95%) Mean Mean Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Electricity (unit: kw) 194.4 186.6 202.1 2,415.0 2,290.0 2,540.1 Firewood (unit: m ) 3 0.3 0.2 0.3 2.1 1.8 2.4 Coal (unit: tons) 0.3 0.3 0.4 2.5 2.3 2.6 Gas (unit: m )3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 Dung (unit: kg) 1.3 0.0 3.5 6.2 0.0 15.4 Compacted dung (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 Charcoal (unit: kg) 2.9 0.0 7.3 10.4 0.0 24.3 Sawdust (unit: kg) 3.6 0.1 7.1 21.4 0.0 42.9 “Yonton” fuel (unit: liters) 2.1 0.0 5.3 10.7 0.0 23.4 Crop residues (unit: tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled tires (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled plastics (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 kg) Recycled oil (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled papers (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Sewer system (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Centralized heating (unit: 539.8 378.1 701.4 4,438.8 3,111.2 5,766.4 kg) Note: other fuels specified by respondents were “Candle”, “Khargana”, “Mixed coal and dung”, “Saw Dust”, “Shahmal” “Stove” and “Zag”. They do not account for more than 10 observations and are not included in this table. (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 101 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.6.5 Fuel used by the household for heating, cooking and lighting during the past month and the past 12 months. Aimag centers (1) sample Past month Past 12 months Class Confidence interval Confidence interval (95%) (95%) Mean Mean Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Electricity (unit: kw) 101.5 97.1 105.9 1,215.3 1,157.8 1,272.7 Firewood (unit: m3) 0.7 0.6 0.7 4.6 4.3 5.0 Coal (unit: tons) 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.6 1.9 Gas (unit: m )3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 Dung (unit: kg) 91.8 73.5 110.0 717.6 629.7 805.5 Compacted dung (unit: 50.5 38.9 62.0 374.2 305.5 442.9 kg) Charcoal (unit: kg) 0.9 0.0 1.8 5.2 0.0 11.4 Sawdust (unit: kg) 3.3 0.0 6.8 14.1 0.0 30.0 “Yonton” fuel (unit: liters) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crop residues (unit: tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled tires (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.3 Recycled plastics (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.7 kg) Recycled oil (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled papers (unit: 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.8 0.0 4.9 kg) Sewer system (unit: kg) 695.2 522.8 867.5 6,913.5 5,122.3 8,704.7 Centralized heating (unit: 93.9 37.4 150.4 530.3 193.3 867.3 kg) Note: other fuels specified by respondents were “Candle”, “Khargana”, “Mixed coal and dung”, “Saw Dust”, “Shahmal” “Stove” and “Zag”. They do not account for more than 10 observations and are not included in this table. (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 102 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.6.6 Fuel used by the household for heating, cooking and lighting during the past month and the past 12 months. Rural sample Past month Past 12 months Confidence interval Confidence interval Class (95%) Mean (95%) Mean Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Electricity (unit: kw) 2.9 1.7 4.1 52.9 9.7 96.1 Firewood (unit: m ) 3 0.4 0.4 0.5 3.4 3.0 3.8 Coal (unit: tons) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 Gas (unit: m )3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Dung (unit: kg) 529.6 477.6 581.7 4,646.3 4,243.8 5,048.8 Compacted dung (unit: kg) 422.6 374.4 470.9 2,526.1 2,290.7 2,761.5 Charcoal (unit: kg) 4.4 0.0 12.3 20.0 0.0 52.4 Sawdust (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 “Yonton” fuel (unit: liters) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crop residues (unit: tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled tires (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 11.9 Recycled plastics (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 14.2 kg) Recycled oil (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled papers (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sewer system (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Centralized heating (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 kg) Note: other fuels specified by respondents were “Candle”, “Khargana”, “Mixed coal and dung”, “Saw Dust”, “Shahmal” “Stove” and “Zag”. They do not account for more than 10 observations and are not included in this table. (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 103 Table C.6.7 Fuel used by the household for heating, cooking and lighting during the past 12 months divided by Aimag (continues on the next page) 104 Ulaan- Ovorkhan- Arhan- Bayank- Bayan- Class Hovsgol Tov Khentii Selenge Uvs Zavkhan baatar gai gai hongor Olgii Electricity (unit: kw) 2,438.3 366.1 482.2 423.6 1,054.3 473.8 530.1 955.7 1,427.7 650.4 563.8 Firewood (unit: m3) 1.7 2.1 9.7 14.9 2.5 0.9 2.7 4.0 5.3 5.5 10.7 Coal (unit: tons) 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.2 2.7 1.3 0.7 1.2 0.0 3 Gas (unit: m ) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 Dung (unit: kg) 15.6 7,847.3 619.0 199.6 2,615.9 2,097.1 2,111.8 1,611.0 259.9 2,288.9 655.4 Compacted dung (unit: 0.0 2,086.7 278.6 29.4 1,210.6 742.2 1,751.0 1,021.6 637.3 3,292.2 235.3 kg) Charcoal (unit: kg) 10.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 19.0 0.0 62.6 0.0 0.0 98.0 0.0 Sawdust (unit: kg) 21.9 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.4 0.0 “Yonton” fuel (unit: 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 liters) Crop residues (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 tons) Recycled tires (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Recycled plastics (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 kg) Recycled oil (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled papers (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 kg) Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Sewer system (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,503.2 0.0 0.0 1,176.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Centralized heating 4,532.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,166.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 (unit: kg) Note: other fuels specified by respondents were “Candle”, “Khargana”, “Mixed coal and dung”, “Saw Dust”, “Shahmal” “Stove” and “Zag”. They do not account for more than 10 observations and are not included in this table. The number of respondents for each Aimag center can be seen in Appendix A (Table A.1). Table C.6.7 Fuel used by the household for heating, cooking and lighting during the past 12 months divided by Aimag (continuation) Darkhan Class Bulgan Dornod Dornogobi Dundgobi Gobi-Altai Khovd Omnogobi Svkhbaatar Orkhon Uul Electricity (unit: kw) 1,599.1 960.4 1,121.9 1,916.2 865.3 590.9 773.4 867.2 705.0 1,355.2 3 Firewood (unit: m ) 1.8 9.2 3.9 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.6 1.0 0.0 3.0 Coal (unit: tons) 1.1 0.6 2.3 3.2 2.2 1.0 1.6 2.6 2.6 0.1 3 Gas (unit: m ) 0.0 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.0 Dung (unit: kg) 450.0 1,079.6 1,615.9 481.8 1,057.5 1,341.0 4,928.2 991.6 4,282.1 0.0 Compacted dung (unit: 231.0 557.7 564.1 812.8 1,011.5 1,519.2 251.3 1,132.1 3,673.1 0.0 kg) Charcoal (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sawdust (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 “Yonton” fuel (unit: liters) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Crop residues (unit: tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled tires (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled plastics (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 kg) Recycled oil (unit: kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Recycled papers (unit: 23.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.0 0.2 kg) Sewer system (unit: kg) 81,204.5 0.0 0.0 5,756.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 410.3 0.0 Centralized heating (unit: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,766.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 kg) Note: other fuels specified by respondents were “Candle”, “Khargana”, “Mixed coal and dung”, “Saw Dust”, “Shahmal” “Stove” and “Zag”. They do not account for more than 10 observations and are not included in this table. The number of respondents for each Aimag center can be seen in Appendix A (Table A.1). Appendix C. Additional Tables 105 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.6.8 Fuel used by the household for cars/trucks during the past month and the past 12 months. National results Confidence interval Confidence interval Mean (95%) (95%) Pctg. Past month (liters) Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Diesel 4.5 3.0 6.0 17.1 12.9 20.4 Gasoline 21.7 19.0 24.5 82.9 82.1 83.5 Total 26.2 23.1 29.3 100.0 Past 12 months Diesel 55.1 37.6 72.6 18.3 14.2 21.6 Gasoline 246.2 214.8 277.7 81.7 80.8 82.4 Total 301.3 265.8 336.9 100.0 Table C.6.9 Fuel used by the household for cars/trucks during the past month and the past 12 months. Ulaanbaatar sample Confidence interval Mean Confidence interval (95%) Pctg. (95%) Past month (liters) Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Diesel 7.7 4.0 11.4 20.3 12.7 25.8 Gasoline 30.1 24.9 35.3 79.7 78.9 80.2 Total 37.8 31.5 44.0 100.0 Past 12 months Diesel 93.0 49.8 136.2 21.2 13.6 26.7 Gasoline 345.8 286.3 405.3 78.8 78.0 79.4 Total 438.8 366.9 510.7 100.0 106 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.6.10 Fuel used by the household for cars/trucks during the past month and the past 12 months. Aimag centers (1) sample Confidence interval Confidence interval Mean (95%) (95%) Pctg. Past month (liters) Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Diesel 4.6 2.6 6.6 19.9 16.9 21.5 Gasoline 18.5 11.3 25.8 80.1 72.1 84.2 Total 23.2 15.7 30.6 100.0 Past 12 months Diesel 61.3 37.3 85.3 21.5 19.2 22.7 Gasoline 223.5 136.8 310.2 78.5 70.5 82.6 Total 284.8 194.1 375.4 100.0 (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. Table C.6.11 Fuel used by the household for cars/trucks during the past month and the past 12 months. Rural sample Confidence interval Confidence interval Mean (95%) (95%) Pctg. Past month (liters) Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound Diesel 1.3 0.6 1.9 7.5 4.0 10.1 Gasoline 15.4 12.9 17.9 92.5 91.9 92.9 Total 16.7 14.1 19.3 100.0 Past 12 months Diesel 14.0 8.1 19.8 8.0 5.3 10.0 Gasoline 161.4 139.7 183.2 92.0 91.2 92.7 Total 175.4 153.2 197.7 100.0 107 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.6.12 Fuel collection by household members in Mongolia (percentages) Ulaan- Aimag Na- Class Rural baatar centers (1) tional Household members collecting firewood, dung or other materi- 1.9 25.2 94.2 42.9 als to use them as fuel Household members who collect firewood, dung or other mate- rials for use as fuel Adult males 1.5 14.9 31.1 16.0 Adult females 0.2 2.3 8.7 4.0 Children only 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 Male and female adults 0.1 4.4 36.7 15.2 Adult females and children 0.0 0.3 3.0 1.2 Adult males and children 0.0 0.9 1.9 1.0 All members of household 0.0 2.1 12.7 5.4 No household member collects firewood, dung or other 98.1 74.8 5.8 57.1 materials for use as fuel (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. Table C.6.13 Fuel collection by household members in Mongolia (percentages). National results % Confidence interval (95%) Class Lower bound Upper bound Household members collecting firewood, dung or 42.9 41.9 43.9 other materials to use them as fuel Household members who collect firewood, dung or other materials for use as fuel Adult males 16.0 14.5 17.6 Adult females 4.0 3.1 4.8 Children only 0.1 0.0 0.3 Male and female adults 15.2 13.7 16.7 Adult females and children 1.2 0.7 1.8 Adult males and children 1.0 0.5 1.4 All members of household 5.4 4.3 6.4 No household member collects firewood, dung 57.1 56.1 58.1 or other materials for use as fuel 108 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.6.14 Fuel collection activities by households in Mongolia Aimag Class Ulaanbaatar Rural National centers (1) Mean n Mean n Mean n Mean n Units of fuel the household collected during the past month Firewood (m3) 2.8 4 2.3 96 2.3 77 2.5 177 Dung (m3) 843.3 3 910.4 64 1,333.1 237 1,047.7 304 Recycled tires (kg) - 0 - 0 8.0 2 3.1 2 Recycled materials (kg) - 0 85.0 2 - 0 19.8 2 Others (2) 1.0 7 194.6 9 165.0 6 109.4 22 Units of fuel the household collected during the past 12 months Firewood (m3) 9.3 15 10.1 199 8.7 230 9.3 444 Dung (m ) 3 2,433.3 3 4,239.2 186 8,518.5 526 5,199.6 715 Recycled tires (kg) - 0 9.0 2 56.0 4 23.7 6 Recycled materials (kg) - 0 1,100.0 2 - 0 256.7 2 Others (2) 5.1 9 1,440.0 12 1,608.6 7 957.8 28 Hours household members spend each week collecting 3.5 17 9.6 319 10.5 588 7.6 924 fuel in summer Hours household members spend each week collecting 14.5 17 5.3 319 6.8 588 9.4 924 fuel in winter Kilometers covered by household members for 22.8 17 25.5 319 10.0 588 18.5 924 gathering fuel (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) Others include “ash”, “bush”, “coal”, “gishvv”, “sand”, “saw dust” and “zag”. 109 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.6.15 Fuel collection activities by households in Mongolia. National results Confidence interval (95%) Class Mean n Lower Upper bound bound Units of fuel the household collected during the past month Firewood (m3) 2.5 2.4 2.6 177 Dung (m ) 3 1,047.7 1,004.4 1,091.0 304 Recycled tires (kg) 3.1 2.8 3.4 2 Recycled materials (kg) 19.8 19.2 20.5 2 Others (1) 109.4 104.4 114.3 22 Units of fuel the household collected during the past 12 months Firewood (m3) 9.3 8.9 9.6 444 Dung (m3) 5,199.6 4,984.3 5,415.0 715 Recycled tires (kg) 23.7 22.4 25.0 6 Recycled materials (kg) 256.7 240.4 273.0 2 Others (1) 957.8 896.5 1,019.1 28 Hours household members spend 7.6 7.3 8.0 924 each week collecting fuel in summer Hours household members spend 9.4 9.0 9.7 924 each week collecting fuel in winter Kilometers covered by household 18.5 17.4 19.6 924 members for gathering fuel (1) Others include “ash”, “bush”, “coal”, “gishvv”, “sand”, “saw dust” and “zag”. 110 Table C.7.1 Sources of water supply used by households for drinking in Mongolia (percentages) Most frequently used for drinking (1) Urban Rural National Aimag centers Ulaanbaatar (2) Total urban Source of water supply % % Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence % % % interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound bound bound bound bound bound bound Centralized: hot/cold water 38.5 35.4 41.7 15.7 13.7 17.7 29.9 27.4 32.3 0.2 0.0 0.5 18.4 17.1 19.7 pipe Public tap (3) 4.8 3.4 6.2 7.5 6.1 9.0 5.8 4.5 7.2 0.3 0.0 0.8 3.7 3.1 4.4 Protected well (4) 11.1 9.1 13.2 41.0 38.3 43.7 22.5 20.1 24.8 20.2 17.0 23.3 21.6 20.0 23.2 Protected spring (5) 0.1 0.0 0.3 2.2 1.4 3.0 0.9 0.3 1.5 1.6 0.6 2.6 1.2 0.7 1.6 Bottled water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Vendor provided water (6) 41.7 38.5 44.9 11.8 10.0 13.6 30.3 28.0 32.7 0.3 0.0 0.8 18.8 17.5 20.1 Unprotected well & spring 1.4 0.7 2.2 6.8 5.4 8.2 3.5 2.3 4.6 42.1 38.3 46.0 18.4 16.8 19.9 Tanker trucks (7) 2.1 1.2 3.0 9.2 7.6 10.8 4.8 3.5 6.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 3.0 2.5 3.5 River, pond or snow/ice 0.1 0.0 0.3 3.9 2.8 4.9 1.5 0.8 2.3 21.0 17.8 24.2 9.0 7.8 10.3 water Other (non-specified) (8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.8 13.5 10.8 16.1 5.4 4.4 6.5 Appendix C. Additional Tables 111 Do not use/did not score 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.8 112 as frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Proportion of the population with sustainable access to 54.6 51.4 57.8 66.5 63.9 69.1 59.1 56.3 61.9 22.3 19.0 25.5 44.9 43.1 46.8 an improved water source – MDI 7.8 (9) Proportion of the population with sustainable access to an improved water source 96.3 95.1 97.5 78.3 76.0 80.6 89.5 87.6 91.3 22.6 19.3 25.9 63.7 62.3 65.1 (including vendor provided water) (10) (1) For the Ulaanbaatar sub-sample, no source of water supply accounts for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. For the Aimag centers sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 1.2% and “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 2.5%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. For the Rural sub-sample, as second most frequently used “Protected well” accounts for 1.4%, “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 3.4%, “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 15.1% and “Others (non-specified)” accounts for 5.0%; as third most frequently used “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 1.8% and “Others (non- specified)” accounts for 1.0%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second or third most frequently used. For the National results, as second most frequently used “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 1.5%, “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 6.1% and “Others (non-specified)” accounts for 2.0%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. (2) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (3) Water vending kiosk connected to central pipeline. (4) Well with fencing around 10 m, concrete protection with insulated lid preventing water contamination. (5) Spring discharging water into the tap, thus preventing open access to the water source by humans or animals. (6) Private vendors, water distribution kiosks not connected to central pipeline. Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia (7) Truck delivered water. (8) For this question, respondents were not asked to specify the “other” sources of water supply for drinking. (9) Millennium Development Indicator 7.8 - This indicator is calculated taking into account the proportion of the households using any of the following types of water supply for drinking: centralized hot/cold water pipe, public tap, protected well and protected spring. (10) This indicator includes the water sources included in the MDI 7.8 (see previous footnote) plus vendor provided water. Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.7.2 Water access by households in Mongolia Ulaan- Aimag Rural National results baatar centers (1) Class Confidence interval (95%) Mean Mean Mean Mean Lower bound Upper bound Liters of water consumed 76.9 40.4 33.3 51.6 51.3 51.9 by the household every day Time (minutes) needed to get to the main water 28.2 23.4 50.6 35.7 35.3 36.0 source (round trip) (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 113 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.7.3 Sources of water supply used by households for other uses in Mongolia (percentages) Most frequently used for other uses (1) Source of water supply Ulaan- Aimag Rural National baatar centers (2) Centralized: hot/cold water pipe 38.5 15.7 0.2 18.4 Public tap (3) 4.8 7.5 0.3 3.7 Protected well (4) 11.1 41.0 20.2 21.6 Protected spring (5) 0.1 2.2 1.6 1.2 Bottled water 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Vendor provided water (6) 41.7 11.8 0.3 18.8 Unprotected well & spring 1.4 6.8 42.1 18.4 Tanker trucks (7) 2.1 9.2 0.2 3.0 River, pond or snow/ice water 0.1 3.9 21.0 9.0 Other (non-specified) (8) 0.0 1.0 13.5 5.4 Do not use/did not score as most 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 frequently used Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (1) For the Aimag centers subsample, as second most frequently used “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 1.2% and “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 2.5%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. For the Rural subsample, as second most frequently used “Protected well” accounts for 1.4%, “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 3.4%, “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 15.0% and “Others” accounts for 5.0%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. For the National results, as second most frequently used “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 1.6%, “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 6.4% and “Others” accounts for 2.0%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. (2) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (3) Water vending kiosk connected to central pipeline. (4) Well with fencing around 10 m, concrete protection with insulated lid preventing water contamination. (5) Spring discharging water into the tap, thus preventing open access to the water source by humans or animals. (6) Private vendors, water distribution kiosks not connected to central pipeline. (7) Truck delivered water. (8) For this question, respondents were not asked to specify the “other” sources of water supply for drinking. 114 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.7.4 Sources of water supply used by households for other uses in Mongolia (percentages). National results Most frequently used for other uses (1) Source of water supply Confidence interval (95%) % Lower bound Upper bound Centralized: hot/cold water pipe 18.4 17.1 19.7 Public tap (2) 3.7 3.1 4.4 Protected well (3) 21.6 20.0 23.2 Protected spring (4) 1.2 0.7 1.6 Bottled water 0.0 0.0 0.1 Vendor provided water (5) 18.8 17.5 20.1 Unprotected well & spring 18.4 16.8 19.9 Tanker trucks (6) 3.0 2.5 3.5 River, pond or snow/ice water 9.0 7.8 10.3 Other (non-specified) (7) 5.4 4.4 6.5 Do not use/did not score as most 0.5 0.2 0.8 frequently used Total 100.0 (1) As second most frequently used “Unprotected well and spring” accounts for 1.6%, “River, pond or snow/ice water” accounts for 6.4% and “Others” accounts for 2.0%. The remaining sources of water supply do not account for more than 1.0% as second most frequently used. (2) Water vending kiosk connected to central pipeline. (3) Well with fencing around 10 m, concrete protection with insulated lid preventing water contamination. (4) Spring discharging water into the tap, thus preventing open access to the water source by humans or animals. (5) Private vendors, water distribution kiosks not connected to central pipeline. (6) Truck delivered water. (7) For this question, respondents were not asked to specify the “other” sources of water supply for drinking. 115 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.7.5 Household opinions about water access and related health issues in Mongolia (percentages) Ulaan- Aimag Class Rural National baatar centers (1) Household can connect in the neighborhood 35.9 14.8 1.4 17.7 to a centralized water pipe (2) Household opinion about the taste of the 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 water from main drinking source (3) Very bad 4.0 4.7 10.9 6.8 Bad 43.0 53.9 46.0 46.7 Fair / normal 44.9 32.6 35.4 38.4 Good 6.7 7.9 6.7 7.0 Very good 1.4 0.9 1.0 1.1 Household opinion about the health risk of 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 the water from main drinking source (3) Very low 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 Low 5.3 3.5 3.5 4.2 Fair / normal 17.5 17.6 17.1 17.4 High 25.9 23.0 22.3 23.8 Very high 49.7 55.0 55.9 53.3 (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) For this question, n=563 for the Ulaanbaatar subsample, n=1,067 for the Aimag centers subsample, n=623 for the Rural subsample and n=2,253 for the National results. (3) Before any treatment the household may do. 116 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.7.6 Household opinions about water access and related health issues in Mongolia (percentages). National results Confidence interval (95%) % Class Lower bound Upper bound Household can connect in the neighborhood to a centralized water 17.7 16.4 19.0 pipe (1) Household opinion about the taste of the water from main drinking source (2) Very bad 6.8 5.7 7.9 Bad 46.7 44.7 48.7 Fair / normal 38.4 36.4 40.4 Good 7.0 5.9 8.0 Very good 1.1 0.7 1.5 Household opinion about the health risk of the water from main drinking source (2) Very low 1.3 0.8 1.7 Low 4.2 3.4 5.0 Fair / normal 17.4 15.8 18.9 High 23.8 22.1 25.6 Very high 53.3 51.3 55.4 (1) For this question, n=2,253. (2) Before any treatment the household may do. 117 Table C.8.1 Sanitation and waste management and facilities in Mongolian households (percentages) 118 Urban Rural National Ulaanbaatar Aimag centers (1) Total urban Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence Class interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) % % % % % Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound bound bound bound bound bound bound Type of toilet/latrine used as main sanitation facility 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 by Mongolian households Inside of household 37.8 34.6 40.9 15.7 13.7 17.7 29.4 27.0 31.8 0.3 0.0 0.8 18.2 16.9 19.5 Outside of 60.8 57.6 64.0 79.1 76.9 81.4 67.8 65.2 70.3 28.5 25.0 32.1 52.6 50.8 54.5 household Public or shared 1.3 0.6 2.0 4.0 2.9 5.0 2.3 1.4 3.2 0.3 0.0 0.8 1.5 1.1 2.0 None, we relieve 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.6 1.8 0.5 0.1 1.0 70.8 67.3 74.4 27.6 26.2 29.0 ourselves outside Places where wastes from toilet/latrine 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 are discharged by Mongolian Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia households Sewer system 37.4 34.3 40.6 15.4 13.4 17.4 29.1 26.4 31.8 0.2 0.0 0.5 17.9 16.7 19.2 Own and small 1.5 0.7 2.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.1 sewer system Simple hole (pit 45.6 42.4 48.9 65.2 62.6 67.8 53.1 51.1 55.1 9.9 7.6 12.3 36.4 34.8 38.1 latrine) Outside/land 8.8 7.0 10.7 12.3 10.5 14.1 10.2 9.0 11.3 18.6 15.5 21.6 13.4 12.0 14.8 Do not discharge 2.4 1.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 1.3 wastes It is buried 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 Canal 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 (2) Toilet/latrine 2.6 1.6 3.7 1.0 0.5 1.6 2.0 1.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.8 1.7 Do not use own 1.4 0.7 2.2 5.1 3.9 6.4 2.8 2.4 3.3 71.2 67.6 74.7 29.2 27.7 30.6 toilet/latrine Proportion of 84.6 82.3 86.9 80.9 78.8 83.1 83.2 81.8 84.7 10.3 7.9 12.6 55.1 53.7 56.5 the population with access to an improved sanitation- MDI 7.9 (3) (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) This answer is redundant but has been included in the table to describe all the answers given to the question by the respondents. (3) Millennium Development Indicator 7.9 - This indicator is calculated taking into account the proportion of the households with access to facilities such as sewer systems, own and small sewer systems, and simple hole (pit latrine). Appendix C. Additional Tables 119 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.8.2 Sanitation and waste management and facilities in Mongolian households (percentages) Ulaan- Aimag Class Rural National baatar centers (1) Mongolian households with a pit latrine/septic 97.5 94.0 43.0 75.7 tank in their plot (2) Action performed by Mongolian households when the pit latrine/septic tank is full (3) Empty by vaccum truck 7.3 1.1 0.0 3.0 Dig new one 34.5 59.4 11.1 31.3 Have not been filled yet since dug and built 14.1 11.9 1.3 8.6 Do not know 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.8 To salt 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 Others (4) 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.7 Household do not have pit latrine/septic tank 40.4 25.3 87.7 55.1 Places used by Mongolian households to relieve themselves outside Ravine 0.0 0.6 41.0 15.9 Field 0.0 0.5 29.6 11.5 Neighbor’s toilet 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 Vacant land/lot 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Do not need to relieve themselves outside 99.9 98.8 29.2 72.4 Household that can connect in their neighborhood to a sewer system Yes 13.6 6.6 0.8 7.1 No 37.3 69.6 92.9 66.3 Do not know 11.6 8.4 6.1 8.7 Do not need to connect to a sewer system 37.4 15.4 0.2 17.9 Households with plans to improve/upgrade their sanitation facilities during the next 2 27.4 26.3 11.1 20.9 years Agent who takes the solid waste away from household dwellings Household, accepted places 94.0 59.0 1.8 50.3 Household, anywhere 5.6 37.9 12.2 15.7 Municipality 0.4 3.2 86.1 34.1 120 Appendix C. Additional Tables Mongolian households that pay for their solid 84.2 85.4 100.0 90.6 waste collection (5) Households willing to separate their solid waste if selective collection would be 61.6 34.1 13.5 36.6 guaranteed Note: households were asked if they pay a charge/fee for using the nearest public latrine but only two answered “yes”. (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. (2) For this question, n=546 for the Ulaanbaatar subsample, n=945 for the Aimag centers subsample, n=77 for the Rural subsample and n=1,568 for the National results. (3) If the respondent says that he/she has both, he/she was asked to answer for the septic tank. (4) Others include “Digging in the winter”, “Do not know”, “Never filled since it was dig and built”, “Just move to this place” and “Salting it”. (5) For this question, n=725 for the Ulaanbaatar subsample, n=637 for the Aimag centers subsample, n=11 for the Rural subsample and n=1,373 for the National results. 121 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.8.3 Sanitation and waste management and facilities in Mongolian households (percentages). National results Confidence % interval (95%) Class Lower Upper bound bound Mongolian households with a pit latrine/septic tank in their plot (1) 75.7 74.1 77.3 Action performed by Mongolian households when the pit latrine/ septic tank is full (2) Empty by vaccum truck 3.0 2.4 3.7 Dig new one 31.3 29.7 32.9 Have not been filled yet since dug and built 8.6 7.6 9.7 Do not know 0.8 0.4 1.1 To salt 0.5 0.2 0.7 Others (3) 0.7 0.4 1.0 Household do not have pit latrine/septic tank 55.1 53.4 56.7 Places used by Mongolian households to relieve themselves outside Ravine 15.9 14.4 17.4 Field 11.5 10.2 12.9 Neighbor’s toilet 0.1 0.0 0.2 Vacant land/lot 0.1 0.0 0.2 Do not need to relieve themselves outside 72.4 71.0 73.8 Household that can connect in their neighborhood to a sewer system Yes 7.1 6.1 8.0 No 66.3 64.7 67.8 Do not know 8.7 7.6 9.8 Do not need to connect to a sewer system 17.9 16.7 19.2 Households with plans to improve/upgrade their sanitation 20.9 19.3 22.4 facilities during the next 2 years Agent who takes the solid waste away from household dwellings Household, accepted places 50.3 49.3 51.2 Household, anywhere 15.7 14.4 16.9 Municipality 34.1 33.0 35.1 122 Appendix C. Additional Tables Mongolian households that pay for their solid waste collection (4) 90.6 89.6 91.6 Households willing to separate their solid waste if selective 36.6 34.9 38.3 collection would be guaranteed Note: households were asked if they pay a charge/fee for using the nearest public latrine but only two answered “yes”. (1) For this question, n=1,744. (2) If the respondent says that he/she has both, he/she was asked to answer for the septic tank. (3) Others include “Digging in the winter”, “Do not know”, “Never filled since it was dig and built”, “Just move to this place” and “Salting it”. (4) For this question, n=1,618. 123 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.8.4 Sanitation and waste management characteristics in Mongolian households Ulaan- Aimag Class Rural National baatar centers (1) Mean n Mean n Mean n Mean n Times per month household empty/dig a new pit latrine / 0.0 546 0.0 945 0.0 77 0.0 1,568 septic tank Times per year household empty/dig a new pit latrine / 0.3 546 1.6 945 1.1 77 0.9 1,568 septic tank Cost of emptying the pit latrine/septic tank today 13.3 546 12.9 945 6.5 77 10.6 1,568 estimated by households (thousand Tgs) Cost of building the pit latrine/septic tank today 110.0 441 82.0 924 38.9 68 76.1 1,433 estimated by households (thousand Tgs) Materials 74.4 441 51.5 924 22.9 68 49.2 1,433 Labor 25.5 441 23.0 924 9.8 68 18.8 1,433 Others 10.1 441 7.5 924 6.3 68 8.0 1,433 Distance to the closest public latrine from 14.5 11 55.2 57 40.8 4 34.1 72 household home (meters) Minutes of queue at the nearest public latrine during 2.8 12 4.4 57 5.8 4 4.3 73 the busiest time of the day Estimation of the money household will spend over the next two years 217.5 251 206.3 333 52.7 69 151.4 653 improving/upgrading their current sanitation facilities Kilograms of solid waste produced by the household 15.6 916 23.2 1265 28.0 624 22.2 2,805 every week (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 124 Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.8.5 Sanitation and waste management characteristics in Mongolian households. National results Confidence Mean interval (95%) Class n Lower Upper bound bound Times per month household empty/dig a new pit latrine / 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,568 septic tank Times per year household empty/dig a new pit latrine / 0.9 0.8 1.0 1,568 septic tank Cost of emptying the pit latrine/septic tank today 10.6 9.4 11.7 1,568 estimated by households (thousand Tgs) Cost of building the pit latrine/septic tank today estimated by households (thousand Tgs) 76.1 73.5 78.6 1,433 Materials 49.2 47.3 51.1 1,433 Labor 18.8 17.8 19.9 1,433 Others 8.0 7.3 8.8 1,433 Distance to the closest public latrine from household 34.1 32.8 35.4 72 home (meters) Minutes of queue at the nearest public latrine during the 4.3 4.0 4.6 73 busiest time of the day Estimation of the money household will spend over 151.4 145.0 157.8 653 the next two years improving/upgrading their current sanitation facilities Kilograms of solid waste produced by the household 22.2 21.3 23.0 2,805 every week 125 Table C.8.6 Waste management characteristics in Mongolian households 126 Ulaanbaatar Aimag centers (1) Rural National Confidence Confidence Confidence Confidence Class interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) interval (95%) Mean Mean Mean Mean Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper bound bound bound bound bound bound bound bound Percentage of solid waste type produced by household every week % paper 9.2 8.5 10.0 6.2 5.5 6.9 1.1 0.9 1.4 5.4 5.0 5.7 % textiles 1.2 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.2 % plastics 5.6 5.1 6.1 2.8 2.5 3.1 0.6 0.5 0.8 3.0 2.8 3.2 % glass 2.6 2.3 2.9 1.6 1.4 1.8 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.4 1.7 % can and metals 2.1 1.8 2.4 1.1 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.1 1.0 1.3 % food recycle 31.6 30.0 33.3 20.3 18.9 21.7 7.8 7.0 8.7 19.8 19.1 20.6 % ash 39.8 37.5 42.1 56.1 54.3 58.0 79.2 77.8 80.7 58.8 57.7 59.9 % other 7.9 7.1 8.6 11.1 10.1 12.1 9.5 8.5 10.6 9.3 8.7 9.8 Times solid waste is collected in the 3.5 3.1 4.0 3.0 2.6 3.4 2.1 0.0 4.4 2.8 1.9 3.8 month for the household (mean) Times solid waste is collected in the year 3.7 3.1 4.2 8.4 7.1 9.7 5.1 0.4 9.9 5.3 3.5 7.2 for the household (mean) Amount paid by the household per time Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia that their solid waste is collected (mean 2.0 1.9 2.1 4.3 3.7 4.9 3.6 0.0 7.4 3.2 1.7 4.6 Tugrugs) Amount paid by the household per month 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.4 1.7 0.9 2.5 2.0 1.7 2.3 for solid waste collection (mean Tugrugs) (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. Appendix C. Additional Tables Table C.9.1 Attitudinal questions about the choice experiments Level of disagreement/agreement with the following Aimag Ulaan- statements (1 ‘Totally agree’, 2 ‘Agree’, 3 ‘Does not centers Rural National baatar (1) apply/not sure’, 4 ‘Disagree’ and 5 ‘Totally disagree’) Mean Mean Mean Mean CHOICE PROGRAMS 1 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 Deciding which option to choose was difficult 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.8 I was sure about the option that I chose CHOICE PROGRAMS 2 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 Deciding which option to choose was difficult 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 I was sure about the option that I chose INFORMATION I understood the water and sanitation improvement 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.9 plans I think that it is likely that at least one of the plans will be 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 implemented (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 127 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.10.1 Characteristics of the sample and the interview Continuous variables (mean Ulaan- Aimag Rural National values) baatar centers (1) Year of birth 1,967 1,965 1,967 1,967 Members of the household 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 Household’s total monthly 219,145.7 188,033.6 128,665.9 177,019.5 net income Time of duration of the 39.5 53.0 73.4 55.7 interview (minutes) Categorical variables % % % % (percentages) Percentage of male 43.9 53.6 70.0 56.2 respondents Marital status Married 64.4 71.0 73.4 69.4 Living together 1.4 1.5 0.6 1.1 Separated 3.2 1.2 1.6 2.1 Divorced 4.4 4.0 2.9 3.7 Widowed 14.7 14.9 12.2 13.8 Never married 11.9 7.4 9.3 9.8 Highest education/ qualification level None 0.8 3.3 10.7 5.2 Primary 3.5 8.9 29.5 14.8 Secondary 7.8 25.9 38.6 23.9 Complete secondary 43.9 29.6 13.8 28.9 Vocational 12.3 10.7 5.0 9.1 Higher education with 13.9 9.0 2.1 8.2 diploma Bachelor 15.4 11.9 0.3 8.8 Other 2.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 Household’s total monthly net income (intervals) No direct income 2.5 1.7 4.0 2.9 128 Appendix C. Additional Tables Less than 75.000 tugrugs 2.9 8.2 23.2 12.0 Between 75.000 and 12.4 23.4 37.5 24.7 149.000 tugrugs Between 150.000 and 15.3 21.7 19.7 18.5 224.999 tugrugs More than 225.000 tugrugs 66.8 44.9 15.5 41.9 Attitude of the respondent Very reluctant to answer 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Somehow reluctant to 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.4 answer Average 10.7 13.8 22.3 15.9 Good 61.0 67.0 62.8 63.1 Very good 28.1 18.2 14.6 20.6 Understanding of the respondent Did not understand at all 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Badly understood 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.6 Average understanding 6.8 13.0 18.8 12.8 Well understood 64.6 65.4 63.9 64.5 Very well understood 27.3 19.8 15.5 21.0 (1) Includes urban households not located in Ulaanbaatar. 129 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Table C.10.2 Characteristics of the sample and the interview. National results Mean Confidence interval (95%) Continuous variables (mean values) Lower bound Upper bound Year of birth 1,966.6 1,966.0 1,967.2 Members of the household 4.0 3.9 4.0 Household’s total monthly net income 177,019.5 173,904.1 180,134.9 Time of duration of the interview (minutes) 55.7 54.0 57.4 % Confidence interval (95%) Categorical variables (percentages) Lower bound Upper bound Percentage of male respondents 56.2 54.3 58.2 Marital status Married 69.4 67.5 71.3 Living together 1.1 0.7 1.5 Separated 2.1 1.5 2.7 Divorced 3.7 3.0 4.5 Widowed 13.8 12.4 15.2 Never married 9.8 8.6 11.1 Highest education/qualification level None 5.2 4.2 6.2 Primary 14.8 13.3 16.3 Secondary 23.9 22.2 25.6 Complete secondary 28.9 27.2 30.7 Vocational 9.1 8.0 10.2 Higher education with diploma 8.2 7.2 9.2 Bachelor 8.8 7.8 9.8 Other 1.1 0.7 1.5 Household’s total monthly net income (intervals) No direct income 2.9 2.2 3.6 Less than 75.000 tugrugs 12.0 10.6 13.4 Between 75.000 and 149.000 tugrugs 24.7 22.9 26.4 Between 150.000 and 224.999 tugrugs 18.5 16.9 20.1 More than 225.000 tugrugs 41.9 40.2 43.7 130 Appendix C. Additional Tables Attitude of the respondent Very reluctant to answer 0.0 0.0 0.1 Somehow reluctant to answer 0.4 0.2 0.7 Average 15.9 14.3 17.4 Good 63.1 61.1 65.1 Very good 20.6 18.9 22.2 Understanding of the respondent Did not understand at all 0.0 0.0 0.1 Badly understood 1.6 1.1 2.1 Average understanding 12.8 11.4 14.3 Well understood 64.5 62.6 66.5 Very well understood 21.0 19.4 22.6 131 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Appendix D. The questionnaire Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia (ENRMSS). VERSION A HOUSEHOLD ID Cluster number: Household number: ADDRESS:                                           ENUMERATOR: SUPERVISER: Date: Time Interview starts: The purpose of this survey is to get to know the opinions of Mongolians about their environment and about the best way to improve it. There are no right or wrong answers; we really want to know what you think about the environmental challenges that Mongolia is facing. 132 Appendix D. The questionnaire. SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES I’d like you to think about the following list of environmental issues that the Government may need to address over the next ten years: Air pollution ………………………………………….………1 Access to drinking water ………………………………..…..2 Poor garbage and solid waste collection……………..….…3 Poor disposal of household waste water…………….….….4 Improper disposal of hazardous wastes from mining……..5 Encroachment on protected areas………………………….6 Loss of wildlife………………………………………….…....7 Desertification………………………………………………..8 Over-grazing ………………………………………………...9 Too much noise ………………………………………….…10 Deforestation………………………………………………..11 Forest and land fires……………………………………..…12 Other (specify) ……………………………………….……..13 1.1. Which one of these issues is the most important one to address in [NAME OF CITY / Name of SOUM]? 1.2. Which one of these issues is the second most important one to address in [NAME OF CITY / Name of SOUM]? 1.3. Which one of these issues is the most important one to address in MONGOLIA? 1.4. Which one of these issues is the second most important one to address in MONGOLIA? SECTION 2. air pollution 2.1. Is the household urban (including surrounding ger districts)? YES …..1 NO…….2 (SECTION 3) 2.2. How would you characterize the air quality in [NAME OF CITY]? VERY POLLUTED.................... 1 SOMEWHAT polluted ........ 2 About average …………..…3 FAIRLY CLEAN..........................4 VERY CLEAN ........................... 5 2.3. In your opinion, which of the following do you think is the most important source of air pollution in [name of city]? ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS ........... 1 133 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia STEEL AND CHEMICAL PLANTS ...... 2 CARS AND BUSES ............................ 3 HOUSEHOLD HEATING .................... 4 OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) …………...5 2.4. How much do you think you personally contribute to air pollution problems? MUCH LESS THAN THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD ....................1 SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD …........2 ABOUT THE SAME AS OTHER HOUSEHOLDS ........................ 3 SOMEWHAT MORE THAN THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD ……...4 MUCH MORE THAN THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD ...............….5 2.5. How many times a week do you use the following transports within your city? PRIVATE CAR: TAXI: PUBLIC TRANSPORT (BUS, trolleybus): 2.6. Which of the following consequences from air pollution are you most concerned about? REDUCED VISIBILITY............... .............................................. 1 INCREASED COSTS OF CLEANING (laundry, windows)….......... 2 INCREASED COSTS FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE …...........3 HEALTH EFFECTS................... ................................................4 ADVERSE EFFECTS ON TREES AND OTHER PLANTS............ 5 OTHER: (SPECIFY) ...................................................................6 2.7. Does anyone in your household suffer from chronic, minor respiratory health problems? (e.g., bronchitis, colds, flu) YES ... 1 NO .... 2 (>> 2.9). 2.8. How much do you feel that air pollution in [name of city] contributes to their illness? AIR POLLUTION IS NOT THE CAUSE................................. 1 AIR POLLUTION IS A RELATIVELY MINOR CAUSE ………. .2 AIR POLLUTION IS ONE OF SEVERAL CAUSES…………... .3 AIR POLLUTION CONTRIBUTES A LOT …………………….. 4 AIR POLLUTION IS THE MAIN CAUSE …………………….... 5 2.9. Does anyone in your household suffer from major respiratory health problems? (e.g., asthma, emphysema, or lung or throat cancer) YES……………….1 NO…………………2 (>> 2.11). 134 Appendix D. The questionnaire. 2.10. How much do you feel that air pollution in [name of city] contributes to their illness? AIR POLLUTION IS NOT THE CAUSE................................. 1 AIR POLLUTION IS A RELATIVELY MINOR CAUSE ……….. 2 AIR POLLUTION IS ONE OF SEVERAL CAUSES………….... 3 AIR POLLUTION CONTRIBUTES A LOT …………………….. 4 AIR POLLUTION IS THE MAIN CAUSE …………………….... 5 2.11. How strong do you think the linkage is between AIR POLLUTION and human health in the general population? IT DOES NOT CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS …………………... 1 IT IS A MINOR CAUSE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS………………..2 IT IS one cause among others………………………………3 it IS IMPORTANT, BUT NOT ONE OF THE MAIN CAUSES …...4 it IS ONE OF THE MAIN CAUSES OF HEALTH PROBLEMS … 5 2.12. How important an issue is air quality improvement to you? NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL............................... 1 NOT VERY IMPORTANT.................................. 2 About average………………………………....3 SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT ............................. ..4 VERY IMPORTANT........................................... 5 2.13. Is the household in Ulaanbaatar? YES …..1 NO…….2 (SECTION 3) Background There are many contaminants in the air in Ulaanbaatar. These contaminants come from several main sources, such as: 1. Gers using inefficient raw coal heating stoves 2. Private automobiles, taxis, and buses 3. Power plants Air quality in Ulaanbaatar is worst in winter when heating systems are operating and air pollutants become trapped in the city. In fact, air quality in Ulaanbaatar is worse than in most other cities. The average level of particulates matters in the air (smoke, dust and others) is almost 10 times higher in Ulaanbaatar than in London or New York, and also much higher than in Beijing or Delhi. [SHOW RESPONDENT TABLE], 135 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Population Particulate matter (µ/m3) London 8,505,000 21 New York 18,718,000 21 Beijing 10,717,000 89 Delhi 15,048,000 150 Ulaanbaatar 994,000 200 Scientists have proved that the current quality of air in Ulaanbaatar is a serious threat to people›s health. Air pollution causes some discomfort in almost everyone, including such things as watering eyes, chest pain, coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath. Air pollutants can cause or worsen a wide range of respiratory illnesses, including: 1. chronic bronchitis (chest infections) 2. asthma 3. emphysema 4. pneumonia Air pollution also increases the risk of lung cancer. Besides these health-related effects, air pollution reduces visibility, and increases the economic costs to maintain buildings, and increases cleaning costs of clothes, cars, and buildings. Air pollution also causes stress on trees and other plants. Air Pollution Clean-Up Plan Suppose that the national government and the municipality of Ulaanbaatar were considering a series of policies and projects designed to improve the air quality in the city. Suppose these actions included: [SHOW RESPONDENT THE FOLLOWING LIST] 1. Installation of advanced air pollution abatement technologies on power plants; 2. Promote the use of wood brickets and pellets in the ger districts instead of raw coal; 3. Promote the use of improved heating stoves in gers; 4. Promote housing in the ger districts and connect households to central heating systems; 5. Setting and enforcing emission standards for motor vehicles; 6. Reduce the number of automobiles and taxis by promoting public transportation. Consequences of Air Pollution Clean-up Plan Suppose that if all these clean-up actions were completed, the concentration of particulate matters in Ulaanbaatar would be reduced by approximately 20 % in five years. That is, the program would improve air quality but would not solve the problem completely. 136 Appendix D. The questionnaire. Based on scientific models that relate particulate matter pollution in the air and mortality, it is estimated that this reduction would save about 100 lives per year in Ulaanbaatar. Other benefits would include improved visibility, reduced damages to buildings, and reduced cleaning costs. Costs of the Air Pollution Clean-up Plan If the national government and the municipality decided to implement this plan, it would be costly for all the sources of pollution: industries, transport, and households. Households such as yours would also have to pay for some of the costs of implementing this plan. You can think of these costs as an increase in the cost of living because your household would pay them in a variety of ways. For example, the price of home heating would be higher, and the price of electricity might increase to help pay for pollution abatement equipment on power plants. Willingness-to-Pay Question I want you to suppose that in total all of these price increases that would be needed to implement the air pollution abatement plan for Ulaanbaatar would cost your household 10,000 Tugrogs per year (during five years). I want you to imagine that the people of Ulaanbaatar had an opportunity to vote on this air quality clean-up plan. If the majority of people voted for the plan, the plan would go into effect and every household would have to pay. If the majority of people voted against the plan, no one would have to pay and the air pollution would stay as it is now. Some people have told us they would support the plan and pay this amount because cleaning up air pollution is a high priority for them. Others say they would vote against the plan because they have many other things to spend their money on. There is no right or wrong answer; we really want to know how you would vote on this proposal. 2.14. If this air pollution clean-up plan costs households like yours 10,000 TUGROGS per year (during five years), would you vote for the plan or against it? [Show the respondent the following choices] YES (FOR THE AIR POLLUTION CLEAN-UP PLAN)………..1 NO (AGAINST THE AIR POLLUTION CLEAN-UP PLAN) …. 2 NOT SURE/DON’T KNOW.. .................................................. 3 Please indicate your level of agreement/disagreement with the following statements: 2.15. Deciding my answer to question 2.14 was difficult 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 137 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 2.16. I was sure about my answer to question 9.1 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 2.17. What is the main reason you voted [FOR / AGAINST] the air quality improvement plan? 2.18. What is the most your household would be willing to pay per year (during five years) for the air quality improvement plan, assuming that other households in [NAME OF CITY] also pay their fair share? MAX WTP TUGROGS PER YEAR: SECTION 3. herders 3.1. In the last 12 months, have your household raised or owned livestock? Yes …………..1 No …………….2 (>>Section 4). Please let me know to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements. 3.2. Although there is variation from year to year, the condition of those winter pastures I know is worse now than 10 years ago. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 3.3. Although there is variation from year to year, the condition of those summer pastures I know is worse now than 10 years ago. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 3.4. Water for livestock is less available now than 10 years ago. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 138 Appendix D. The questionnaire. 3.5. The composition of the national herd is appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 3.6. Soum authorities should determine the grazing patterns of the herders 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 3.7. Otor movements have no place in the modern world 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 3.8. There are so many livestock today that they are damaging the pastures. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 3.9. Hay and fodder should be produced by community groups. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 3.10. Trespassing on winter pastures is worse than 10 years ago. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 3.11. Is the number of animals in your soum Increasing ……………..1 decreasing …………….2 (>> 3.16). 3.12. Should something be done to reduce the number of animals in your soum? Yes …………..1 No …………….2 (>> 3.14). 139 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 3.13. Which one of the following alternatives to reduce the number of animals do you consider more appropriate? limit the number of animals that a person can own………………………………..…1 limit the total number of animals that a soum can support and sell the right to have an animal to the herder ready to pay more…………………………2 Other OTHER (SPECIFY)…………………………………………3 3.14. Should something be done to reduce the long-term movement of animals into your soum? Yes …………..1 No …………….2 (>> 3.16). 3.15. Which one of the following alternatives to reduce the long-term movement of animals into your soum do you consider more appropriate? Allowing only the access of erders with a small number of SMALL NUMBER OF ANIMALS................................................................1 Allowing only the access of herders which have been grazing here for more than 10 years...............................................................2 Setting a fee per animal for new herders that want to move into the soum ....................................................................................................3 OTHER (SPECIFY)............................................................................................4 3.16. Do you think that improving infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and others would prevent herders from moving for long periods to soums close to larger cities such as Ulaanbaatar? Yes …………..1 No …………….2 (>> 3.18). 3.17. Which infrastructure do you think would have a larger impact in preventing this long- term movement towards the soums close to larger cities such as Ulaanbaatar? hospitals …………..1 schools …………….2 Other (SPECIFY) …………........................................ 140 Appendix D. The questionnaire. 3.18. Did anyone in your household move with your animals at least once in the past year? Yes, but only ordinary movements …………………………………….1 yes, ordinary movements and at least one otor movement…2 No ..............................................................................................3 (>> 3.23). 3.19. Does all the household move with your animals? Yes …………..1 No …………….2 3.20. How many times a year does [all / part of] your household move with your animals? 3.21. About how many kilometers does [all / part of] your household each year while moving with your animals? 3.22. Do you use trucks to move your belongings? Yes …………..1 No …………….2 3.23. Did [all / part of] your household move with your animals in the past in otor movements? Yes …………..1 No …………….2 (>> 3.25). 3.24. When was the last time that [all / part of] your household moved with your animals in otor movements? Year 3.25. What is your opinion about the sufficiency of your pastures, hay and fodder provisions, wells and animal pens? (in different seasons of the year) Mark all answers with an X Sufficient Average Not sufficient Pastures Winter, Spring Autumn, Summer Hay and fodder Winter, Spring Autumn, Summer Wells Winter, Spring Autumn, Summer Animal pens Winter, Spring Autumn, Summer 141 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 3.26. Do you own/possess any of the following? (mark the answer to each item with an X) Mark all answers with an X Own Possess Winter and spring pasture Summer and autumn pasture Well Livestock shelters and corrals House at winter camp 3.27. What guarantees/secures your possession of winter and spring pastures? A long tradition of possession…….1 Our pens and fences are there……2 There are no guarantees…………….3 Distributed by the soum……………….4 Other (specify)…………………………….5 3.28. Who can settle today disputes over pastures? Soum and bag governors…………………………………………….…..1 People respected in their area………………………………………..2 Herders themselves……………………………………………………….3 None of them can settle the problem……………………………...4 Other (specify)………………………………………………………………..5 3.29. Who should determine the grazing patterns of the herder? Soum and bag governors…………………………………………….…..1 People respected in their area………………………………………..2 Herders themselves……………………………………………………….3 herders groups ……………………………………………………………..4 Other (specify)………………………………………………………………..5 3.30. What do you think on use and possession of pastures? Pastures should be … Used as common land …………………………………………………….…1 Used under contract …………………………………………………….…2 Possessed under contract…………………………………………….…3 Have individual ownership…………………………………………………4 Other (specify)………………………………………………………………….5 142 Appendix D. The questionnaire. 3.31. In your opinion, did the natural environment and weather change in the last decade? Mark all answers with an X Declined No change Improved Plant composition Pasture yield Weather (Winter, Spring) Weather (Summer, Autumn) Rivers, springs, streams (Winter, Spring) Rivers, springs, streams (Summer, Autumn) 3.32. Which of the following activities in livestock production is the highest priority to you? To increase livestock number……………..…..1 To improve livestock breed…………………..…2 To improve livestock health…………………....3 To own a pasture…………………………………..…4 To purchase machinery/equipment…………...5 to ease the labor in animal husbandry….….6 To own a well…………………………………………..7 Other (specify)…………………………………………8 3.33. Do you belong to a herders group? Yes …………..1 No …………….2 (>>3.36). 3.34. How many herders form this group? 3.35. Do you think that belonging to a herder group is NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL.................. 1 NOT VERY IMPORTANT.................... 2 About average……………………..3 SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT ................ 4 VERY IMPORTANT ............................ 5 3.36. Did you produce hay and/or fodder last season? Yes, I produced it as part of a herders group …………..1 YES, I produced it alone ……………………………………………..2 No……………………………………………………………………………3 (>>3.38). 143 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 3.37. How much hay and/or fodder did you produce last season? 3.38. Did you lose any animals in the last big dzud (year 2001-2002) Yes …………..1 No …………….2 (>>3.40). 3.39. What percentage of your animals did you lose? TOTAL female young Cattle Horses Camels Sheep Goats 3.40. Do you have any of your animals covered by any kind of insurance system? Yes …………..1 No …………….2 (>> 3.44). 3.41. Do you have all or only part of your livestock covered by insurance? All …………..1 (>> 3.43) part………...2 3.42. Could you specify the percentage of your livestock that you have covered by insurance? 3.43. What type of insurance do you have? Index-Based Livestock Insurance ………...….1 (>> section 4) Other type Of Livestock Insurance…………2 (>> section 4) 3.44. Why do you not have any type of insurance? Lack of information………………………………..1 Lack of financial opportunities………………2 I do not trust insurance companies……..…3 I am not interested in insurance …………….4 Other (specify)……………………………..………...5 144 Appendix D. The questionnaire. SECTION 4. natural resources Please let me know to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements. 4.1. Traditionally Mongolians respected Nature and the Environment. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.2. Today Mongolians respect Nature and the Environment. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.3. Today rural Mongolians respect Nature and the Environment more than urban Mongolians. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.4. Today poor Mongolians respect Nature and the Environment more than rich Mongolians. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.5. Today Mongolian politicians respect Nature and the Environment. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.6. Community groups are a good way to manage natural resources. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.7. Pasture should be privatized. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.8. Forests will be managed better by community groups than by the government. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 145 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 4.9. Forests will be managed better by commercial loggers than by the government. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.10. The licensing and management of forests/wildlife/mining is made difficult because of corruption. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.11. I want marmots and deer and other animals to be abundant again and would be prepared to not hunt/eat them for some years to allow them to recover. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.12. There would be more wild animals if commercial trade were stopped. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.13. Forest fires in my soum have become worse in the last 10 years. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.14. There has been an increase in illegal logging activities in my soum. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.15. Reforestations (planting trees) should be promoted. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.16. It is acceptable for people to fell pine trees to collect their nuts. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 4.17. Mongolia Special Protected Areas are well managed. 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 146 Appendix D. The questionnaire. SECTION 5. CONSUMPTION OF wild-life FOOD 5.1 Have you con- Unit 5.3 How FOR THE PAST MONTH sumed ..[ITEM].. much 5.2 How Purchases 5.6 How 5.7 How during the 12 ..[ITEM] much much much months? have you ..[ITEM] 5.4 How 5.5 What came came consumed have you much was the from from own during consumed came average gifts or produc- the past during the from unit price was re- tion? YES …1 (for all the month? past 12 purchas- of that ceived items consumed months? es? quantity? free? ask questions 5.2 to 5.7 and then move one to the next item on the list) NO……2 100 MEAT 101 Marmot kg 102 Gazelle kg 103 Roe deer kg 104 Red deer kg 105 Brown bear kg 106 Rabbit kg 107 Moose kg 108 Antelope kg 109 Wild goat kg 110 Wild sheep kg 111 Wolf kg 112 Other meat kg (specify) 200 Fish 201 White fish kg 202 Small os- kg man 203 Taimen kg 204 Mongolian kg grayling 205 Lenok kg 206 Other fish kg (specify) 147 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Fruits, 300 NUTS 301 Red and kg black cur- rant 303 Black and kg blueberry, gooseberry 303 Canker kg berry 304 “Uhriin nud” kg 305 Hawthorn kg 306 Mushrooms kg 307 “Moil” kg 308 “Nokhoin kg hoshuu” 309 “Dollogon” kg 310 “Toshloi” kg 311 “Tehiin kg sheeg” 312 Other kg wild fruits (specify) 313 Pine nuts kg Other wild kg 314 nuts (spec- ify) 148 Appendix D. The questionnaire. SECTION 6. enERGY NUMBER FROM MOST FREQUENTLY USED FUEL (USING 1 FOR THE MOST FREQUENTLY USED FUEL, 2 for the second, …) What fuel do you use for [USE]? HEATING COOKING LIGHTING OTHER USES ELECTRICITY FIREWOOD COAL FUEL OIL GAS DUNG / COMPACTED DUNG CHARCOAL CROP RESIDUES RECICLED MATERIALS (tIres, etc.) Solar panels Wind turbines OTHER (specify) About how many [UNIT] of [FUEL] did your household USE Unit past past 12 for heating, cooking and lighting during the [PERIOD]? MONTH months ELECTRICITY Kw FIREWOOD m3 COAL ton FUEL OIL liters GAS m3 DUNG kg COMPACTED DUNG kg CHARCOAL kg CROP RESIDUES ton SAWDUST kg RECICLED tIres kg RECICLED PLASTICS kg RECICLED OIL kg OTHER RECICLED MATERIALS kg “YONTON” FUEL liters OTHER (specify) 149 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia About how many [UNIT] of [FUEL] did your household USE Unit past past 12 for your cars/trucks during the [PERIOD]? MONTH months DIESEL liters GASOLINE liters 6.1. Do any members of your household collect firewood, dung or other materials to use them as fuel? YES ..... 1 NO ……2 (>>SECTION 7) About how many [UNIT] of [FUEL] did your household collect during the [PERIOD]? Unit past MONTH past 12 months FIREWOOD m 3 DUNG m3 TIRES and OTHER RECICLED MATERIALS kg OTHER (specify) 6.2. Who collects [wood/dung/other materials] for use as a fuel in your household? ADULT MALES ................................... 1 ADULT FEMALES …………….………..2 CHILDREN ONLY ............................... 3 MALE AND FEMALE ADULTS …….... 4 FEMALE ADULTS AND CHILDREN ….5 MALE ADULTS AND CHILDREN ….... 6 ALL MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD ….. 7 6.3. How much time do members of your household spend each week collecting fuel in [summer / winter]? HOURS PER WEEK IN SUMMER HOURS PER WEEK IN WINTER 6.4. How far away from your house do members of your household usually have to go to gather [wood/dung/other materiasl]? 150 Appendix D. The questionnaire. SECTION 7. ACCESS TO WATER 7.1. How much litters of water consumes your household every day? 7.2. What are your main source(s) of water supply for [USE]? Number from most frequently used water source (using 1 for DRINKING other uses the most frequently used source) (exclude livestock related uses) CENTRALIZED: HOT & COLD WATER PIPE >>7.5 >>7.5 CENTRALIZED: COLD WATER PIPE ONLY >>7.5 >>7.5 Public tap (water vending kiosk connected to central pipeline) Borehole (a hole drilled into a water bearing formation) PROTECTED WELL (well with fencing around 10 m, concrete protection with insulated lid preventing water contamination) Unprotected well Protected spring (spring discharging water into the tap, thus preventing open access to the water source by humans or animals) Unprotected spring Rainwater collection (protected to prevent contamination) River, pond or snow and ice water vendor provided water (private vendors, water distribution kiosks not connected to central pipeline) tanker trucks (truck delivered water) Bottled water OTHER 7.3. How much time do you need to get to your main water source (round trip)? 7.4. Is it possible for a household in this neighborhood to connect to a centralized water pipe if they want to? YES ………………………………………….1 NO …………………………………..……… 2 7.5. How would you judge the taste of the water from you main drinking water source? (before any treatment the household may do) Very bad ……………………..1 Bad ………………………………2 Fair / normal……….………..3 Good……………………………4 Very good……………………5 7.6. How would you judge the health risk of the water from you main drinking water source? (before any treatment the household may do) 151 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia Very low ………………………..1 low ………………………………2 Fair / normal ………………..3 high………………………………4 Very high………………………5 SECTION 8. SANITATION - WASTE 8.1. What type of [toilet/latrine] do you use as your main sanitation facility? water-sealed toilet………………………….1 Pour-flush latrine …………………………..2 Ventilated lined pit latrine……………….3 Simple pit latrine………………………………4 public or shared latrine……………………5 >>8.8 open pit latrine………………………………....6 bucket latrine…………………………………..7 none, we relieve ourselves outside…..8 >>8.12 other (specify)…………………………………..9 8.2. Where are the wastes from your [toilet/latrine] discharged? Septic tank ..................................................... .1 simple hole (PIT LATRINE)..........………………2 Sewer system………………………………….. .3 >> 8.14 River / Canal …… …………………………..… 4 Pond………………………………………………….5 Outside / LAND.................................................. 6 Other (specify) ………………………………... 7 Don’t know ...................................................... 8 8.3. Do you have a [pit latrine /septic tank] in your plot? YES .. 1 NO ….2 (>>8.13) 8.4. What do you do when the [pit latrine /septic tank] is full? If the respondent says that he/she has both focus on the septic tank in questions 8.4 to 8.7 EMPTY BY VACCUM TRUCK…...1 DIG NEW ONE……………………..2 OTHER (SPECIFY)………………..3 8.5. How often do you [empty your / dig a new] [pit latrine /septic tank]? Months: 152 Appendix D. The questionnaire. 8.6. How much would it cost to have your [pit latrine /septic tank] emptied today? 8.7. How much would it cost to have a [pit latrine /septic tank] like yours built today? MATERIALS: LABOR : TOTAL : Tugrogs >> 8.13 8.8. How far is it to the closest public latrine from your home? METERS: 8.9. During the busiest time of the day, how long is the queue at the nearest public latrine? No. OF MINUTES: (QUEUE TIME) 8.10. Is there a charge/fee for using the nearest public latrine? YES .. 1 NO ….2 (>>8.13) 8.11. How much is the charge? Tugrogs (>> 8.13) 8.12. Where do members of this household go to relieve themselves? RIVER/POND ..................... 1 SURFACE DRAIN .............. 2 FIELD ................................. 3 VACANT LAND/LOT .......... 4 OTHER (SPECIFY) ……......5 8.13. Is there a sewer system in this neighborhood/area that households can discharge their household wastewater and excreta into if they want to connect to the sewer pipe? (i.e., is it possible for a household in this neighborhood to connect to a sewer system if they want to?) YES . ................................ 1 NO ………………………… 2 DON’T KNOW .................. 3 8.14. Does your household have plans to improve or upgrade your current sanitation system/facilities during the next two years? YES .. 1 NO ….2 (>> 8.16) 8.15. How much money do you think your household will spend over the next two years improving/upgrading your current sanitation facilities? 8.16. About how many kilograms of solid waste produces your household every week? 8.17. What is the approximate proportion of each one of the following categories in your 153 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia solid waste? % PAPER % TEXTILES % PLASTICS % GLASS % METALS % OTHER INORGANIC MATERIALS % ORGANIC MATERIALS 100% 8.18. Who takes the solid waste away from your dwelling? Ourselves………………1 >> 8.22 Municipality…………….2 Other (specify)………..3 8.19. How often is your solid waste collected? 8.20. How much do you pay for your solid waste collection? Tugrogs per each time that solid waste is collected Tugrogs per Month 8.21. Do you think that the frequency of solid waste collection is? correct………………………………1 too separated in time…………..2 8.22. Would you be willing to separate your solid waste if selective collection would be guaranteed? YES .. 1 NO ….2 SECTION 9. choice between environmental improvement programs Drinking water source Irrespectively of your personal situation, you are probably aware that improved water sources are not available to all the population in Mongolia. In fact, currently about 7 out of 10 Mongolians (70% of the population) have access to what is considered an “improved water source”. Piped water, public tap, borehole, protected well or spring, and clean rainwater are considered to be “improved water sources” because they ensure access to clean water and in a large enough quantity. Vendor-provided water, bottled water or tanker trucks are not considered to be “improved 154 Appendix D. The questionnaire. water sources” because they do not provide good access to enough water to people. Unprotected wells and springs are also not considered to be “improved water sources” because of direct contact with pollutants. Poor access to water increases the probability of water-borne diarrhoeal diseases. Salmonella, dysentery, and typhoid are the most common ones, although in 1996 there was an outbreak of cholera in Mongolia. These diseases are transmitted by direct contact with contaminated water, either by drinking it or by eating food cooked with it. Sanitation Again irrespectively of your personal situation, you are probably aware that access to an improved sanitation system is also not available to all Mongolians. In fact, currently about 5 out of 10 Mongolians (50% of the population) have access to what is considered an “improved sanitation system”. Sewers or septic tanks, poor-flush latrines, and simple pit or ventilated improved pit latrines (provided that they are not public) are considered to be “improved sanitation systems” because they hygienically separate human excreta from human, animal and insect contact. Service or bucket latrines, public latrines and latrines with an open pit are not considered to be “improved sanitation systems” because human contact with excreta and insects is more frequent. These “unimproved sanitation systems” increase the probability of water-based diarrheal diseases caused by aquatic organisms that spend part of their life cycle as parasites of animals (e.g. worms). Schistosomiasis is the most common of these diseases in Mongolia. These diseases are transmitted through human contact with excreta, insects and non- treated water. Drinking water and sanitation improvement plans Suppose that the Ministry of Nature, Environment and Tourism (MNET) were considering two programs: a “drinking water improvement plan” and a “sanitation improvement plan”. The “drinking water improvement plan” would consist of several measures, depending on the region: 1. Increase the number of apartments with access to piped water that is suitable for drinking. 2. Installation of public taps in ger districts of cities; ensuring that no one would need to walk more than 100 meters to reach a tap. 3. Protection of wells and/or springs in the countryside to ensure that water is safe for drinking. The “sanitation improvement plan” would also consist of several measures 1. Increase the number of apartments connected to a sewer system in cities; ensuring that the waste water is treated in a “waste water treatment plant”. 2. In ger districts, installation of ventilated improved pit-latrines and pour-flush toilets; 155 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia ensuring that the waste water is treated in a “waste water treatment plant” in the latter case. 3. In the countryside, installation of ventilated improved pit-latrines in places where herders tend to concentrate, such as winter camps. Consequences of the environmental improvement plans The “drinking water improvement plan” would ensure that in five years 9 out of 10 Mongolians have access to an improved water source for drinking (an additional 20% of the population). These people would drink better tasting water and would drink all the water that their bodies need. It is estimated that this would produce around 90,000 less cases of water-borne diarrheal diseases in Mongolia annually, once the 5-year period of the program implementation ends. The risk of another outbreak of cholera would also be reduced. The “sanitation improvement plan” would ensure that in five years 7 out of 10 Mongolians have access to an improved sanitation system (an additional 20% of the population). It is estimated that around 125,000 less cases of water-based diarrheal diseases would occur in Mongolia annually, after the 5-year period of the program. Costs of the improvement plans Both plans just described are costly. They imply recurrent costs such as maintenance of hardware and replacement of parts, emptying of latrines or regulation and control of water supply and water treatment systems. These are annual costs and they would be paid by the direct beneficiaries of the plans. However, in both cases building the necessary infrastructure is too costly to be funded exclusively by the households benefiting from the programs. This refers to investments costs such as planning and supervision of the programs, construction and house alteration works, hardware, and protection of water sources. Therefore, public funding would be necessary and it would be collected through an increase in taxes during the five years of the programs. The main reason for justifying these payments is that both programs have benefits for all Mongolians, since the risk of diseases or even epidemics would be reduced and rivers would be less polluted. Therefore, we would like you to suppose that there is not enough money available to undertake these programs except if all the households of Mongolia would contribute with their fair share. The following table shows three options. Option A and B characterize improvement plans for water and/or for sanitation. Each option can imply a plan only for water improvement, only for sanitation improvement or for both, water and sanitation improvement. The description of each option includes the necessary increase in taxes that you would need to pay each year (during five years). Option C always implies that NO improvement plan is undertaken. This option would have no additional costs for your household. Although you may prefer a different combination, to do our analysis we need you to consider only the three options that we are presenting to you. 156 Appendix D. The questionnaire. 9.1. Which one of these three options would you choose? Improvement plans Code A1 Drinking water YES NO NO improvement plan In 5 years 9 out of 10 Current situation continues Current situation continues Mongolians have access for 5 more years (7 out for 5 more years (7 out of 10 to an improved drinking of 10 Mongolians have Mongolians have access to water source access to an improved an improved drinking water drinking water source) source) Sanitation NO YES NO improvement plan Current situation continues In 5 years 7 out of 10 Current situation continues for 5 more years (5 out Mongolians have access for 5 more years (5 out of of 10 Mongolians have to an improved sanitation 10 Mongolians have access access to an improved system to an improved sanitation sanitation system) system) 50,000 Tg 35,000 Tg Additional taxes for per YEAR per YEAR No additional taxes your household during 5 years during 5 years Mark ONLY ONE Option A Option B Option C OPTION (A, B or C) Please indicate your level of agreement/disagreement with the following statements: 9.2. Deciding which option to choose in question 9.1 was difficult 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 9.3. I was sure about the option that I chose in question 9.1 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 157 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 9.4. And which option would you choose of the following three shown in the next table? Improvement plans Code A2 Drinking water NO YES NO improvement plan Current situation continues In 5 years 9 out of 10 Current situation continues for 5 more years (7 out Mongolians have access for 5 more years (7 out of 10 of 10 Mongolians have to an improved drinking Mongolians have access to access to an improved water source an improved drinking water drinking water source) source) Sanitation NO YES NO improvement plan Current situation continues In 5 years 7 out of 10 Current situation continues for 5 more years (5 out Mongolians have access for 5 more years (5 out of of 10 Mongolians have to an improved sanitation 10 Mongolians have access access to an improved system to an improved sanitation sanitation system) system) 5,000 Tg 50,000 Tg Additional taxes for per YEAR per YEAR No additional taxes your household during 5 years during 5 years Mark ONLY ONE Option A Option B Option C OPTION (A, B or C) 9.5. What is the most your household would be willing to pay per year (during five years) for the implementation of both plans (drinking water and sanitation improvement plans), assuming that other households also pay their fair share? MAX WTP TUGROGS PER YEAR: Please indicate your level of agreement/disagreement with the following statements: 9.6. Deciding which option to choose in question 9.4 was difficult 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 158 Appendix D. The questionnaire. 9.7. I was sure about the option that I chose in question 9.4 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 9.8. I understood the water and sanitation improvement plans 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree 9.9. I think that it is likely that at least one of the plans will be implemented 1 2 3 4 5 Totally disagree Disagree Doesn’t apply / not sure Agree Totally agree SECTION 10. SOCIO-ECONOMIC We have almost finished the survey but before ending we would like to ask you some personal questions. Some of these questions were already included in another survey that you or another member of your household already answered, but we need to ask them again to check the consistency of our different survey instruments. Thank you for your understanding. 10.1. Could you please tell us your name? 10.2. What is your year of birth? 10.3. What is your marital status MARRIED……………………………………1 LIVING TOGETHER……………………….2 SEPARATED………………………………..3 DIVORCED…………………………………..4 WIDOWED……………………………………5 NEVER MARRIED…………………………...6 10.4. What is highest education/qualification level that you achieved? NONE………………………………………………..1 PRIMARY…………………………………………..2 SECONDARY………………………………………3 COMPLETE SECONDARY……………………….4 VOCATIONAL………………………………………5 HIGHER EDUCATION WITH DIPLOMA…………6 BACHELOR………………………………………….7 DOCTOR…………………………………….………8 Other ………………………………………..……9 159 Environment and Natural Resource Management Socio-economic Survey for Mongolia 10.5. Could you please let us now in which one of the following intervals your household’s total monthly net income is included? No direct income………………………………1 Less than 75.000 Tg……………………………..2 Between 75.000 and 149.000 Tg………………3 Between 150.000 and 224.999 Tg…………….4 More than 225.000 Tg…………………………..5 10.6. How many members (including you) has the household you were just referring to? Thank you very much for your time SECTION 11. To be completed by the interviewer after the interview 11.1. Time interview ends: 11.2. What was the sex of the respondent? MALE……………1 FEMALE…………2 11.3. What was the attitude of the respondent? Very reluctant to answer…………..1 Somehow reluctant to answer……2 Average……………………………………….3 Good…………………………………………….4 Very good……………………………………..5 11.4. Did you feel that the respondent understood the questionnaire? Not at all………………………………….….1 Badly…………………………………………....2 Average………………………………………..3 Well……………………………………………...4 Very well……………………………………...5 11.5. Which question(s), if any, did the respondent not understand? Siti bersperibus et 160