IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/stl/stledp/2012-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

We want to sort! - assessing households' preferences for sorting waste

Author

Listed:
  • Czajkowski, Mikolaj
  • Hanley, Nicholas
  • Kadziela, Tadeusz

Abstract

There are two major ways in which solid waste can be sorted and recycled - at the household level, when households are required to sort waste into a given number of categories, or in specialized sorting facilities. Traditionally, it has been thought that sorting at the household level is an inconvenience, as it uses space and requires time and consideration. Our study provides empirical evidence to the contrary. Through a carefully designed choice experiment we collected stated choices of the members of a Polish municipalities with respect to the way their waste is sorted and how often it is collected. In the scenario of our study, respondents were informed that the waste will be sorted anyway - if not at the household level than at a specialized sorting facility. Interestingly, analysis of the preferences of members of the general public shows, that people are willing to sort waste at the household level, even if unsorted waste would be collected at no extra cost. We calculate maximum willingness to pay for collecting sorted vs. unsorted waste, as well for increased frequency of collection. Overall, our results provide encouraging evidence that most people prefer to sort waste themselves if given the choice, and thus demonstrate their pro-environment preferences, even without economic incentives to do so.

Suggested Citation

  • Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & Kadziela, Tadeusz, 2012. "We want to sort! - assessing households' preferences for sorting waste," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2012-01, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:stl:stledp:2012-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/3597
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heleen Bartelings & Thomas Sterner, 1999. "Household Waste Management in a Swedish Municipality: Determinants of Waste Disposal, Recycling and Composting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(4), pages 473-491, June.
    2. Annegrete Bruvoll & Karine Nyborg, 2002. "On the value of households' recycling efforts," Discussion Papers 316, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    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. Fullerton, Don & Kinnaman, Thomas C, 1996. "Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 971-984, September.
    5. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    6. Train, K. & Weeks, M., 2004. "Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0443, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    7. Markowska, Agnieszka & Zylicz, Tomasz, 1999. "Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 301-316, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Ju-Chin Huang, & John M. Halstead, & Shanna B. Saunders, 2011. "Managing Municipal Solid Waste with Unit-Based Pricing: Policy Effects and Responsiveness to Pricing," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(4), pages 645-660.
    10. 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.
    11. Yen-Lien Kuo & Charles Perrings, 2010. "Wasting Time? Recycling Incentives in Urban Taiwan and Japan," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 423-437, November.
    12. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    13. Hong Seonghoon & Adams Richard M. & Love H. Alan, 1993. "An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid Wastes: The Case of Portland, Oregon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 136-146, September.
    14. Videras, Julio & Owen, Ann L. & Conover, Emily & Wu, Stephen, 2012. "The influence of social relationships on pro-environment behaviors," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 35-50.
    15. Krishna Paudel & Mark Schafer, 2009. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve Under a New Framework: The Role of Social Capital in Water Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 265-278, February.
    16. Huhtala, Anni, 2010. "Income effects and the inconvenience of private provision of public goods for bads: The case of recycling in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1675-1681, June.
    17. Jenkins, Robin R. & Martinez, Salvador A. & Palmer, Karen & Podolsky, Michael J., 2003. "The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 294-318, March.
    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. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Karine Nyborg, 2014. "Social norms, morals and self-interest as determinants of pro-environment behaviour," Working Papers 2014-17, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. Nick Hanley & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Stated Preference valuation methods: an evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy," Working Papers 2017-01, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. Heller, Marit H. & Vatn, Arild, 2017. "The divisive and disruptive effect of a weight-based waste fee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 275-285.
    4. repec:eee:pubeco:v:155:y:2017:i:c:p:138-146 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Prasenjit Sarkhel & Sarmila Banerjee & Somdutta Banerjee, 2016. "Willingness to pay before and after program implementation: the case of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Bally Municipality, India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 481-498, April.
    6. Jakob, Michael & Kübler, Dorothea & Steckel, Jan Christoph & van Velduizen, Roel, 2016. "Clean up your own mess: An experimental study of moral responsibility and efficiency," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2016-215, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
    7. FIORILLO, Damiano & SENATORE, Luigi, 2016. "Self Image and Environmental Attitude and Behavior," CELPE Discussion Papers 140, CELPE - Centre of Labour Economics and Economic Policy, University of Salerno, Italy.
    8. Enni Ruokamo & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Artti Juutinen & Rauli Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Working Papers 2016-30, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. Carmelo J. León & Jorge E. Araña & Javier León & Matías M. González, 2016. "The Economic Benefits of Reducing the Environmental Effects of Landfills: Heterogeneous Distance Decay Effects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(1), pages 193-218, January.
    10. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1835-:d:115089 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Germà Bel & Raymond Gradus, 2014. "“Effects of unit-based pricing on the waste collection demand: a meta-regression analysis”," IREA Working Papers 201420, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jun 2014.
    12. repec:eee:ecolec:v:140:y:2017:i:c:p:58-65 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    waste management; recycling; consumers' motives; preference heterogene ity;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:stl:stledp:2012-01. 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: (Liam Delaney). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/destiuk.html .

    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 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.

    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.