IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v47y2015icp233-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders’ willingness to pay for enhanced construction waste management: A Hong Kong study

Author

Listed:
  • Lu, Weisheng
  • Peng, Yi
  • Webster, Chris
  • Zuo, Jian

Abstract

Based on the polluter pays principle, construction waste disposal charging schemes (CWDCS) have been deployed by various economies as one of the most effective ways of managing construction waste. Nevertheless, a means of rationalizing these schemes has not been well documented. Using the economic technique of contingent valuation method (CVM), this study aims to investigate stakeholders’ willingness to pay (WTP) for enhanced construction waste management (CWM) with a view to providing a scientific foundation for CWDCS rationalisation. In considering this WTP in light of repeated exhortations that all stakeholders play a role in the management of construction waste, the study is unique. To ascertain stakeholders’ WTP, a payment card-style questionnaire survey was designed and administered to Hong Kong’s major CWM stakeholders in February 2014. Interestingly, the results show that there is no statistically significant variation in the WTP expressed by different stakeholder groups. The average maximum WTP is around HK$232/t for landfill disposal of construction and demolition (C&D) waste, HK$186/t for off-site sorting facility (OSF) disposal, and HK$120/t for public fill reception facility (PFRF) disposal. These values are higher than the existing CWDCS charges (HK$125/t for land filling, HK$100/t for OSF disposal, and HK$27/t for PFRF disposal) but much lower than the charges proposed to the government. This research provides not only a scientific foundation for the ongoing debate on changes to Hong Kong’s CWDCS, but also a valuable reference for other economies facing the challenge of developing charging schemes to deal with construction waste.

Suggested Citation

  • Lu, Weisheng & Peng, Yi & Webster, Chris & Zuo, Jian, 2015. "Stakeholders’ willingness to pay for enhanced construction waste management: A Hong Kong study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 233-240.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:47:y:2015:i:c:p:233-240
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115001537
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.008?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    2. Breffle, William S. & Eiswerth, Mark E. & Muralidharan, Daya & Thornton, Jeffrey, 2015. "Understanding how income influences willingness to pay for joint programs: A more equitable value measure for the less wealthy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 17-25.
    3. Yuan, Hongping & Lu, Weisheng & Jianli Hao, Jane, 2013. "The evolution of construction waste sorting on-site," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 483-490.
    4. Yuan, Hongping & Wang, Jiayuan, 2014. "A system dynamics model for determining the waste disposal charging fee in construction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 988-996.
    5. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    6. Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    7. Glazyrina, Irina & Glazyrin, Vasiliy & Vinnichenko, Sergey, 2006. "The polluter pays principle and potential conflicts in society," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 324-330, September.
    8. Lu, Weisheng & Tam, Vivian W.Y., 2013. "Construction waste management policies and their effectiveness in Hong Kong: A longitudinal review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 214-223.
    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. Mariano Gallo, 2019. "An Optimisation Model to Consider the NIMBY Syndrome within the Landfill Siting Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Kai Xiong & Fanbin Kong & Ning Zhang & Ni Lei & Chuanwang Sun, 2018. "Analysis of the Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay and Payout Level for Ecological Environment Improvement of the Ganjiang River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Lu, Weisheng & Chen, Xi & Peng, Yi & Shen, Liyin, 2015. "Benchmarking construction waste management performance using big data," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 49-58.
    4. Zeng, Chao & Niu, Dongjie & Li, Hangfen & Zhou, Tao & Zhao, Youcai, 2016. "Public perceptions and economic values of source-separated collection of rural solid waste: A pilot study in China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 166-173.
    5. Lai Sheung Au & Seungjun Ahn & Tae Wan Kim, 2018. "System Dynamic Analysis of Impacts of Government Charges on Disposal of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Hong Kong Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Kauškale Linda & Riemenschneider Frank, 2016. "The Environmental and Economic Substantiation of Investments in Green Buildings," Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management, Sciendo, vol. 4(1), pages 126-144, November.
    7. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "The Korean public's willingness to pay for expanding the use of solid refuse fuel," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 821-827.
    8. Kim, Ju-Hee & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2021. "Public preferences for introducing a power-to-heat system in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. Jia, huanyu & Lin, boqiang, 2024. "Who wants to use it most? Exploring public willingness to pay for district heating in hotly debated southern Chinese cities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    10. Zhang, Xiaoling & Han, Lu, 2018. "Which Factors Affect Farmers’ Willingness for rural community remediation? A tale of three rural villages in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 195-203.
    11. Li, Qianwen & Long, Ruyin & Chen, Hong, 2018. "Differences and influencing factors for Chinese urban resident willingness to pay for green housings: Evidence from five first-tier cities in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 299-313.

    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. Lotte Soeteman & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac, 2017. "The impact of the design of payment scales on the willingness to pay for health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 743-760, July.
    2. Nadia Palmieri & Alessandro Suardi & Luigi Pari, 2020. "Italian Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Eucalyptus Firewood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, March.
    3. P. B. Anand & Roger Perman, 1999. "Preferences, inequity and entitlements: some issues from a CVM study of water supply in Madras, India," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 27-46.
    4. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    5. Halkos, George, 2013. "The relationship between people’s attitude and willingness to pay for river conservation," MPRA Paper 50560, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. 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.
    7. Mikhail Miklyaev & Glenn P. Jenkins & Precious P. Adeshina, 2022. "Ex-Post Evaluation of The Algerian SWRO Desalination PPP Program," Development Discussion Papers 2022-14, JDI Executive Programs.
    8. Pamela Wicker & John C. Whitehead & Bruce K. Johnson & Daniel S. Mason, 2016. "Willingness-To-Pay For Sporting Success Of Football Bundesliga Teams," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(3), pages 446-462, July.
    9. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    10. Marieka M. Klawitter & C. Leigh Anderson & Mary Kay Gugerty, 2013. "Savings And Personal Discount Rates In A Matched Savings Program For Low-Income Families," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(3), pages 468-485, July.
    11. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    12. Van Houtven, George L. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Usmani, Faraz & Yang, Jui-Chen, 2017. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Improved Water Access? Results from a Meta-Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 126-135.
    13. Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Stéphanie Aulong, 2014. "Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?," Post-Print hal-00934930, HAL.
    14. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    15. Dienes, Christian, 2015. "Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 122-129.
    16. Stenger, Anne & Harou, Patrice & Navrud, Ståle, 2009. "Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-14, January.
    17. Kiprop, Jonah Kipsaat, 2015. "An Evaluation Of Farmers Willingness To Pay For Irrigation Water In Kerio Valley Basin Kenya," Research Theses 265580, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    18. Hermann Donfouet & Ephias Makaudze & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Eric Malin, 2011. "The determinants of the willingness-to-pay for community-based prepayment scheme in rural Cameroon," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 209-220, September.
    19. Maksym Polyakov & Morteza Chalak & Md. Sayed Iftekhar & Ram Pandit & Sorada Tapsuwan & Fan Zhang & Chunbo Ma, 2018. "Authorship, Collaboration, Topics, and Research Gaps in Environmental and Resource Economics 1991–2015," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 217-239, September.
    20. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:rensus:v:47:y:2015:i:c:p:233-240. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.