We want to sort! – assessing households’ preferences for sorting waste
AbstractThere are two major ways in which solid waste can be sorted and recycled – at the household level, when households are required to sort waste into a given number of categories, or in specialized sorting facilities. Traditionally, it has been thought that sorting at the household level is an inconvenience, as it uses space and requires time and consideration. Our study provides empirical evidence to the contrary. Through a carefully designed choice experiment we collected stated choices of the members of a Polish municipalities with respect to the way their waste is sorted and how often it is collected. In the scenario of our study, respondents were informed that the waste will be sorted anyway – if not at the household level than at a specialized sorting facility. Interestingly, analysis of the preferences of members of the general public shows, that people are willing to sort waste at the household level, even if unsorted waste would be collected at no extra cost. We calculate maximum willingness to pay for collecting sorted vs. unsorted waste, as well for increased frequency of collection. Overall, our results provide encouraging evidence that most people prefer to sort waste themselves if given the choice, and thus demonstrate their pro-environment preferences, even without economic incentives to do so.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw in its series Working Papers with number 2012-07.
Length: 19 pages
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
waste management; recycling; consumers’ motives; preference heterogeneity;
Other versions of this item:
- Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & Kadziela, Tadeusz, 2012. "We want to sort! - assessing households' preferences for sorting waste," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2012-01, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
- Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
- D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Calcott, Paul & Walls, Margaret, 2005.
"Waste, recycling, and "Design for Environment": Roles for markets and policy instruments,"
Resource and Energy Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 287-305, November.
- Walls, Margaret & Calcott, Paul, 2002. "Waste, Recycling, and "Design for Environment": Roles for Markets and Policy Instruments," Discussion Papers dp-00-30-rev, Resources For the Future.
- Fullerton, Don & Kinnaman, Thomas C, 1996.
"Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 971-84, September.
- Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman, 1994. "Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag," CARE Working Papers 9402, The University of Texas at Austin, Center for Applied Research in Economics.
- Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman, 1994. "Household Responses for Pricing Garbage by the Bag," NBER Working Papers 4670, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Huhtala, Anni, 2010. "Income effects and the inconvenience of private provision of public goods for bads: The case of recycling in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1675-1681, June.
- Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
- Markowska, Agnieszka & Zylicz, Tomasz, 1999. "Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 301-316, August.
- Hong Seonghoon & Adams Richard M. & Love H. Alan, 1993. "An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid Wastes: The Case of Portland, Oregon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 136-146, September.
- Jenkins, Robin R. & Martinez, Salvador A. & Palmer, Karen & Podolsky, Michael J., 2003. "The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 294-318, March.
- Videras, Julio & Owen, Ann L. & Conover, Emily & Wu, Stephen, 2012. "The influence of social relationships on pro-environment behaviors," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 35-50.
- Annegrete Bruvoll & Karine Nyborg, 2002. "On the value of households' recycling efforts," Discussion Papers 316, Research Department of Statistics Norway.
- Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
- Train, K. & Weeks, M., 2004. "Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0443, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marcin Bąba).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.