Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Willingness to pay for recycling food waste in the Brisbane Region

Contents:

Author Info

  • Robert Gillespie

    (Gillespie Economics, a resource and environmental economics consultancy practice)

  • Jeff Bennett

    ()
    (Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University)

Abstract

Kerbside recycling in Australia has focused on paper, cardboard, plastics and bottles and in some areas green waste. Another area for potential kerbside recycling is organic waste. This study uses a dichotomous choice contingent valuation format with follow-up open-ended willingness to pay question to estimate the household willingness to pay for the introduction of a kerbside recycling scheme for kitchen waste. Two provision rules were used. The first sample split contained a majority decision rule while the second sample split contained a provision rule where participation is voluntary. Households across the Brisbane statistical sub-division currently pay in the order of $250 per annum for their kerbside waste collection scheme. This study indicates that on average Brisbane households would be WTP an additional $32 to $35 per year for a general waste bin where food waste is split from general waste. There was no significant difference in results between sample splits with majority or voluntary provision rules. Whether the provision of a food waste recycling scheme is economically efficient requires a consideration of all the potential costs and benefits. Other relevant costs and benefits for inclusion in a benefit cost analysis would include those associated with bin replacement, any additional collection and transport costs, composting costs, revenues from compost sales and avoided landfill costs. If a compulsory food waste recycling scheme could be provided to all households for less than $32 to $35 per household per annum then the benefits of the scheme would exceed the costs and would be considered to be economically efficient and desirable from a community welfare perspective. Given the difficulties of estimating precise WTP values from dichotomous choice data, any BCA of a compulsory scheme incorporating the results of this study should undertake sensitivity testing that includes the range of values reported including dichotomous choice and open-ended means to determine the robustness of BCA results to variations in the welfare estimate. Notwithstanding, the results of any BCA, decision-makers also need to be cognisant of the high proportion of respondents who did not support a kerbside food waste recycling scheme. The data from the study could also be used to undertake a BCA of a voluntary scheme.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR96.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University in its series Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports with number 1096.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Mar 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1096

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, Building #132, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
Email:
Web page: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Hurwicz, Leonid, 2005. "Incentive aspects of decentralization," Handbook of Mathematical Economics, in: K. J. Arrow & M.D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, edition 2, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1441-1482 Elsevier.
  2. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
  3. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
  4. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
  5. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
  6. Trudy Ann Cameron & John Quiggin, 1992. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data From a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire," UCLA Economics Working Papers 653, UCLA Department of Economics.
  7. Donald Green & Karen Jacowitz & Daniel Kahneman & Daniel McFadden, 1995. "Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods," Working Papers _010, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
  8. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
  9. Richard O‘Conor & Magnus Johannesson & Per-Olov Johansson, 1999. "Stated Preferences, Real Behaviour and Anchoring: Some Empirical Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 235-248, March.
  10. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
  11. Groves, Theodore, 1973. "Incentives in Teams," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 617-31, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1096. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Crawford Webmaster).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.