IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental valuation of waste recycling: The case of Quilmes, Argentina


  • Mariana Saidón

    (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES). Dirección postal: Avenida Corrientes, 3740, 13A, CABA, Código Postal 1194, Buenos Aires-Argentina.)


This paper analyzes what factors significantly affect the environmental valuation in the field of solid waste management in the district of Quilmes (Argentina). In order to identify the factors affecting such a valuation, a probit and an ordered probit econometric models were used. The procedure was implemented using the contingent valuation technique and the time-effort was proposed as a standard to evaluate individual preferences. The main findings show that the level of formal education and the confidence in an appropriate government policy for waste management significantly affect population willingness to cooperate. It was also found that gender differences are significant in terms of the magnitude of the effort that the population of Quilmes would be willing to make.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariana Saidón, 2012. "Environmental valuation of waste recycling: The case of Quilmes, Argentina," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 37(34), pages 33-53, july-dece.
  • Handle: RePEc:ula:econom:v:37:y:2012:i:34:p:33-53

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Oliveira, Luciano Basto & Rosa, Luiz Pinguelli, 2003. "Brazilian waste potential: energy, environmental, social and economic benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 1481-1491, November.
    2. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    3. Gorm Kipperberg, 2007. "A Comparison of Household Recycling Behaviors in Norway and the United States," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(2), pages 215-235, February.
    4. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    5. 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.
    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. Damiano Fiorillo, 2013. "Household waste recycling: national survey evidence from Italy," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(8), pages 1125-1151, October.
    2. Chung-Te Ting & Yu-Sheng Huang & Cheng-Te Lin & Szu-Chin Pan, 2019. "Evaluation of Consumers’ WTP for Service Recovery in Restaurants: Waiting Time Perspective," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Zhu, Lichao & Song, Qingbin & Sheng, Ni & Zhou, Xiu, 2019. "Exploring the determinants of consumers’ WTB and WTP for electric motorcycles using CVM method in Macau," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 64-72.
    4. Jones, N. & Evangelinos, K. & Halvadakis, C.P. & Iosifides, T. & Sophoulis, C.M., 2010. "Social factors influencing perceptions and willingness to pay for a market-based policy aiming on solid waste management," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(9), pages 533-540.
    5. Hidano, Noboru & Kato, Takaaki & Aritomi, Masakazu, 2005. "Benefits of participating in contingent valuation mail surveys and their effects on respondent behavior: a panel analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 63-80, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Anne Briand & Noukignon Kone, 2020. "Poverty eradication by improving waste collection: an African case study," Working Papers hal-02430455, HAL.
    10. Vitaliy Roud & Thomas Wolfgang Thurner, 2018. "The Influence of State‐Ownership on Eco‐Innovations in Russian Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1213-1227, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    13. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    15. Olivier Beaumais & Apolline Niérat, 2019. "Exploring in-depth joint pro-environmental behaviors: a multivariate ordered probit approach," Working Papers hal-02361390, HAL.
    16. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    17. Ready, Richard & Fisher, Ann & Guignet, Dennis & Stedman, Richard & Wang, Junchao, 2006. "A pilot test of a new stated preference valuation method: Continuous attribute-based stated choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 247-255, September.
    18. Farjam, Mike & Nikolaychuk, Olexandr & Bravo, Giangiacomo, 2019. "Experimental evidence of an environmental attitude-behavior gap in high-cost situations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Tohmo, Timo, 2004. "Economic value of a local museum: Factors of willingness-to-pay," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 229-240, April.
    20. K.G. Willis & N.A. Powe & G.D. Garrod, 2005. "Estimating the Value of Improved Street Lighting: A Factor Analytical Discrete Choice Approach," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2289-2303, November.

    More about this item


    Valuation; ordered probit; environment; waste.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions


    Access and download statistics


    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:ula:econom:v:37:y:2012:i:34:p:33-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: Alexis Vásquez (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.