Environmental activism and dynamics of unit-based pricing systems
It is well-known that unit-based pricing systems have a significant effect on the quantity of collected waste. Part of this effect may, however, result from a selection bias or environmental activism effect. Based on a pooled cross-section for the Netherlands for 1998-2005 we show that despite the correction for environmental activism the effect of the weight and bag unit-based pricing system on the quantity of waste is sizeable. Moreover, this environmental activism effect is decreasing over time, so that the most environmental friendly municipalities implement unit-based pricing systems at first. In addition, we show that the volume effects of the different unit-based pricing systems are rather stable over time. Although we find some evidence for a learning effect, nearly no evidence is found for an awareness erosion effect. This means at least that the effect of unit-based pricing does not decrease over time, which is reassuring from an environmental point of view. Pricing waste helps.
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.:
- Linderhof, Vincent & Kooreman, Peter & Allers, Maarten & Wiersma, Doede, 2001. "Weight-based pricing in the collection of household waste: the Oostzaan case," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 359-371, October.
- Thomas C. Kinnaman & Don Fullerton, 1997. "Garbage and Recycling in Communities with Curbside Recycling and Unit-Based Pricing," NBER Working Papers 6021, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Dijkgraaf, E. & Gradus, R. H. J. M., 2004.
"Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: The case of The Netherlands,"
Resource and Energy Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 353-371, December.
- Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2004. "Cost savings of unit-based pricing of household waste: The case of the Netherlands," Public Economics 0409001, EconWPA.
- Oecd, 2006. "Impacts of Unit-based Waste Collection Charges," OECD Papers, OECD Publishing, vol. 6(8), pages 1-157.
- 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.
- Kinnaman Thomas C., 2005. "Why do Municipalities Recycle?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, February.
- Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman, 1994.
"Household Responses for Pricing Garbage by the Bag,"
NBER Working Papers
4670, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- Timothy K. M. Beatty & Peter Berck & Jay P. Shimshack, 2007. "Curbside Recycling In The Presence Of Alternatives," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(4), pages 739-755, October.
- Paul Isely & Aaron Lowen, 2007. "Price And Substitution In Residential Solid Waste," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 25(3), pages 433-443, 07.
- Elbert Dijkgraaf & Herman Vollebergh, 2005. "A Test for Parameter Homogeneity in CO 2 Panel EKC Estimations," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(2), pages 229-239, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:31:y:2009:i:1:p:13-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.