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

Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling 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

Waste policy in Australia has a strong focus on kerbside recycling. This has a range of costs and benefits to the community, including non-market benefits. However, in Australia, there has been little investigation of household willingness to pay for kerbside recycling. This paper used mixed logit choice modelling to estimate the willingness to pay of households in Brisbane, Australia for kerbside waste collection services including kerbside recycling. It was found that households in Brisbane have a positive and significant willingness to pay of $131.49 per annum for fortnightly kerbside recycling and would be willing to pay an additional $18.30 to increase the frequency of this service to weekly. The utility of respondents was, however, found to decline by $34.18 per year if general waste collection increased from weekly to twice a week. Based on the assumptions used in this study it would appear that the willingness to pay for kerbside recycling exceeds the net financial costs of this service, suggesting that the scheme is economically efficient. However, the reported economic values for recycling may overstate the community’s true willingness to pay if household responses to the choice questions were confounded by their underlying perceptions about the environmental and resource sustainability benefits of recycling

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_RR97.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 1097.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Mar 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1097

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. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
  2. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2007. "Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 610-623, September.
  3. Boyer, Tracy A., 2006. "Talking Trash: Valuing Household Preferences for Garbage and Recycling Services Bundles Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21074, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  4. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
  5. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
  6. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
  7. Riccardo Scarpa & John M. Rose, 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 253-282, 09.
  8. John M. Rose & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Designs Efficiency for Non-market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure It, What to Report and Why," Working Papers in Economics 07/21, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
  9. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  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.
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:1097. 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.