IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v12y2014i1p176-190d43851.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Residents’ Preferences for Household Kitchen Waste Source Separation Services in Beijing: A Choice Experiment Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Yalin Yuan

    (Laboratory of Environmental Economics, Graduate School of Bio-resources and Bio-environmental Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan)

  • Mitsuyasu Yabe

    (Laboratory of Environmental Economics, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan)

Abstract

A source separation program for household kitchen waste has been in place in Beijing since 2010. However, the participation rate of residents is far from satisfactory. This study was carried out to identify residents’ preferences based on an improved management strategy for household kitchen waste source separation. We determine the preferences of residents in an ad hoc sample , according to their age level, for source separation services and their marginal willingness to accept compensation for the service attributes. We used a multinomial logit model to analyze the data, collected from 394 residents in Haidian and Dongcheng districts of Beijing City through a choice experiment. The results show there are differences of preferences on the services attributes between young, middle, and old age residents. Low compensation is not a major factor to promote young and middle age residents accept the proposed separation services. However, on average, most of them prefer services with frequent, evening, plastic bag attributes and without instructor. This study indicates that there is a potential for local government to improve the current separation services accordingly.

Suggested Citation

  • Yalin Yuan & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2014. "Residents’ Preferences for Household Kitchen Waste Source Separation Services in Beijing: A Choice Experiment Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2014:i:1:p:176-190:d:43851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/1/176/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/1/176/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen Gerard & Marian Shanahan & Jordan Louviere, 2003. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: A pilot study of breast screening participation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(9), pages 1073-1085.
    2. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    3. Suttibak, Samonporn & Nitivattananon, Vilas, 2008. "Assessment of factors influencing the performance of solid waste recycling programs," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 45-56.
    4. Tadesse, Tewodros, 2009. "Environmental concern and its implication to household waste separation and disposal: Evidence from Mekelle, Ethiopia," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 183-191.
    5. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Kądziela, Tadeusz & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "We want to sort! Assessing households’ preferences for sorting waste," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 290-306.
    6. Othman, Jamal & Bennett, Jeff & Blamey, Russell, 2004. "Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modelling experience in Malaysia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(6), pages 803-824, December.
    7. Husaini, I.G. & Garg, A. & Kim, K.H. & Marchant, J. & Pollard, S.J.T. & Smith, R., 2007. "European household waste management schemes: Their effectiveness and applicability in England," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 248-263.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    10. Rosko, Michael D. & McKenna, William, 1983. "Modeling consumer choices of health plans: A comparison of two techniques," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(7), pages 421-429, January.
    11. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Birol, Ekin & Villalba, Eric Rayn & Smale, Melinda, 2009. "Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 521-540, August.
    3. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol, 2010. "Introduction: The Roles and Significance of Choice Experiments in Developing Country Contexts," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Ekin Birol & Katia Karousakis & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Using a choice experiment to inform implementation of the European Union Water Framework Directive: the case of Cheimaditida Wetland in Greece," DEOS Working Papers 0808, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    5. Jeanloz, Sarah & Lizin, Sebastien & Beenaerts, Natalie & Brouwer, Roy & Van Passel, Steven & Witters, Nele, 2016. "Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 45-57.
    6. Sophal Chhun & Paul Thorsnes & Henrik Moller, 2013. "Preferences for Management of Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems: A Choice Experiment in New Zealand," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-33, September.
    7. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Calhoun, Kayla & Colson, Gregory & Kriesel, Warren, 2015. "Effects of Uncertainty on Support for Water Quality Improvement Programs," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205419, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    9. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    10. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    11. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    12. 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.
    13. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    14. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    15. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    16. Jonelle Cleland & Abbie McCartney, 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: Divergence Between Experts and the Public," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1077, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    17. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    18. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    19. Giovanni B Concu, 2009. "Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 199-212, January.
    20. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis, 2011. "Existence and Magnitude of Health-related Externalities: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Department of Economics Working Papers 2011-01, McMaster University.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2014:i:1:p:176-190:d:43851. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.