IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/30846.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Household Willingness To Pay For Dropoff Recycling

Author

Listed:
  • Tiller, Kelly
  • Jakus, Paul M.
  • Park, William M.

Abstract

Increased landfilling costs and state-mandated reductions in municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal have combined to increase interest in recycling as an MSW management option. Most benefit-cost analyses, however, focus solely on urban curbside recycling programs and/or fail to include the benefits which accrue to households from the opportunity to recycle. This study focuses on the economic feasibility of dropoff recycling in rural areas, presenting estimates of household willingness to pay (WTP) for dropoff recycling in a rural/suburban area of Tennessee. Using contingent valuation, the most conservative mean household WTP is near $4.00 per household per month.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiller, Kelly & Jakus, Paul M. & Park, William M., 1997. "Household Willingness To Pay For Dropoff Recycling," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:30846
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.30846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/30846/files/22020310.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.30846?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
    2. John C. Bergstrom & John R. Stoll & Alan Randall, 1990. "The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 614-621.
    3. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    4. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    5. McConnell, K. E., 1990. "Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 19-34, January.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    7. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Berck & Marshall Blundell & Gabriel Englander & Samantha Gold & Shelley He & Janet Horsager & Scott Kaplan & Molly Sears & Andrew Stevens & Carly Trachtman & Rebecca Taylor & Sofia B. Villas‐Boa, 2021. "Recycling Policies, Behavior and Convenience: Survey Evidence from the CalRecycle Program," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 641-658, June.
    2. Gorm Kipperberg & Douglas Larson, 2012. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 577-604, December.
    3. Ferreira, Sandra & Marques, Rui Cunha, 2015. "Contingent valuation method applied to waste management," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 111-117.
    4. Thomas C. Kinnaman & Don Fullerton, 2002. "The Economics of Residential Solid Waste Management," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 1, pages 1-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Bente Halvorsen, 2004. "Effects of norms, warm-glow and time use on household recycling," Discussion Papers 389, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    6. Thomas C. Kinnaman, 2006. "Policy Watch: Examining the Justification for Residential Recycling," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 219-232, Fall.
    7. Jannett Highfill & Michael Mcasey, 2004. "Gains and losses from transfers of solid waste," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 10(2), pages 123-132, May.
    8. Wang , Hua & He, Jie & Kim, Yoonhee & Kamata, Takuya, 2011. "Municipal solid waste management in small towns : an economic analysis conducted in Yunnan, China," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5767, The World Bank.
    9. Campbell, Benjamin & Khachatryan, Hayk & Behe, Bridget & Hall, Charles & Dennis, Jennifer, 2016. "Crunch the can or throw the bottle? Effect of “bottle deposit laws” and municipal recycling programs," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 98-109.
    10. Sidique, Shaufique F. & Lupi, Frank & Joshi, Satish V., 2010. "The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 163-170.
    11. Pickin, Joe, 2008. "Representations of environmental concerns in cost–benefit analyses of solid waste recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 79-85.
    12. Saphores, Jean-Daniel M. & Ogunseitan, Oladele A. & Shapiro, Andrew A., 2012. "Willingness to engage in a pro-environmental behavior: An analysis of e-waste recycling based on a national survey of U.S. households," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 49-63.
    13. Choe, Chongwoo & Fraser, Iain, 1998. "The economics of household waste management: a review," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(3), pages 1-34.
    14. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2008. "Environmental regulation of households: An empirical review of economic and psychological factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 559-574, July.
    15. Jannett Highfill & Michael McAsey, 2001. "Landfilling Versus ``Backstop'' Recycling When Income Is Growing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(1), pages 37-52, May.
    16. Bente Halvorsen, 2008. "Effects of Norms and Opportunity Cost of Time on Household Recycling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 501-516.
    17. Berck, Peter & Sears, Molly & Taylor, Rebecca L.C. & Trachtman, Carly & Villas-Boas, Sofia B., 2024. "Reduce, reuse, redeem: Deposit-refund recycling programs in the presence of alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    18. Sukanya Das & Ekin Birol & Rabindra N. Bhattacharya, 2010. "Informing Efficient Solid Waste Management to Improve Local Environmental Quality and Public Health in West Bengal, India," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Chabba, Meenakshi & Bhat, Mahadev G. & Sarmiento, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Risk-based benefit-cost analysis of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction with considerations of co-benefits, equity, and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    20. Keramitsoglou, Kiriaki M. & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2013. "Public participation in designing a recycling scheme towards maximum public acceptance," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 55-67.
    21. Cho, Sangmin & Kim, Jihyo & Park, Hi-Chun & Heo, Eunnyeong, 2015. "Incentives for waste cooking oil collection in South Korea: A contingent valuation approach," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 63-71.
    22. Annegrete Bruvoll & Karine Nyborg, 2004. "The Cold Shiver of Not Giving Enough: On the Social Cost of Recycling Campaigns," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(4).
    23. Bohm, Robert A. & Folz, David H. & Kinnaman, Thomas C. & Podolsky, Michael J., 2010. "The costs of municipal waste and recycling programs," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 864-871.
    24. Halvorsen, Bente, 2012. "Effects of norms and policy incentives on household recycling: An international comparison," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 18-26.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    6. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    7. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Kyung-Suk Chae, 2001. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Ozone Pollution Control Policy in Seoul: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 38(1), pages 49-60, January.
    8. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    9. Giffoni, Francesco & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "Public support of science: A contingent valuation study of citizens' attitudes about CERN with and without information about implicit taxes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    10. Loomis, John & Peterson, George & Champ, Patricia & Brown, Thomas & Lucero, Beatrice, 1998. "Paired comparison estimates of willingness to accept versus contingent valuation estimates of willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 501-515, May.
    11. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    12. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain [Optimal design for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound and bivar," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    13. Talwar, Shagorika, 1995. "An evaluation of statistical efficiency and bias trade-off involved with the use of follow-up questioning in the contingent valuation of environmental amenities," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000018160, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Thuriane Mahé, 2010. "Are Stated Preferences Confirmed by Purchasing Behaviours? The Case of Fair Trade-Certified Bananas in Switzerland," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 301-315, April.
    15. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
    16. Tsigkou, Stavroula & Klonaris, Stathis, 2020. "Eliciting Farmers' Willingness to Pay for Innovative Fertilizer Against Soil Salinity: Comparison of Two Methods in a Field Survey," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 9, December.
    17. Poe, Gregory L. & Lossin, Eric K. & Welsh, Michael P., 1992. "A Convolutions Approach to Measuring the Differences in Benefit Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Staff Papers 200545, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    18. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    19. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Aiew, Wipon & Woodward, Richard T., 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food: A Non Hypothetical Market Experiment," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24995, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Kai-Lih Chen, 1999. "Measuring values of wetlands in Taiwan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(1), pages 65-89, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:30846. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.