Abstract
This paper examines household preferences for community recycling programs, which have both public and private good dimensions. The data come from a survey conducted in Seattle (WA) which elicited stated preference-contingent ratings for different recycling programs relative to status quo, with experimental variation in the overall community recycling rate achieved and expected household cost. The recycling rate is interpreted as capturing the public benefits of recycling programs and constitutes the most common measure used by policy agencies for setting waste management objectives and evaluating policy initiatives. The analysis begins with fixed parameter models that explore different ways of handling rating data and mixed logit estimations that capture household preference heterogeneity both within and across different recycling programs. This analysis yields unique estimates of willingness to pay for an increase in the community recycling rate. Predicted individual-specific utility parameters are then regressed on household background information to explicitly examine the nature of preference heterogeneity. Overall, this paper generates interpretable policy-relevant insights into the public and private good dimensions of community recycling programs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aadland DA, Caplan AJ (1999) Household valuation of curbside recycling. J Environ Plan Manag 42(6): 781–799
Aadland DA, Caplan AJ (2003) Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. Am J Agric Econ 85(2): 492–502
Aadland DA, Caplan AJ (2006) Curbside recycling: waste resource or waste of resources?. J Policy Anal Manag 25(4): 855–874
Ackerman F (1997) Why do we recycle? Markets, values, and public policy. Island Press, Washington
Akerlof GA, Kranton RE (2000) Economics and identity. Q J Econ CXV(3): 715–753
Allers MA, Hoeben C (2010) Effects of unit-based garbage pricing: a differences-in-differences approach. Environ Resour Econ 45: 405–428
Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow-giving. Econ J 100: 464–477
Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J (1981) Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 17(1): 1–19
Blaine TW, Lichtkoppler FR, Jones KR, Zondag RH (2005) An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling; a comparison of payment card and referendum approaches. J Environ Manag 76(1): 15–22
Bohara AK, Caplan AJ, Grijalva T (2007) The effect of experience and quantity-based pricing on the valuation of a curbside recycling program. Ecol Econ 64(2): 433–443
Bond CA, Hoag DL, Kipperberg G (2011) Agricultural producers and the environment: a stated preference analysis of Colorado corn producers. Can J Agric Econ 59(1): 127–144
Boyle KJ, Holmes TP, Teisl MF, Roe B (2001) A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 83(2): 441–454
Breffle WS, Rowe RD (2002) Comparing choice question formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs. Land Econ 78(2): 298–314
Brekke KA, Kverndokk S, Nyborg K (2003) An economic model of moral motivation. J Public Econ 87 (9–10): 1967–1983
Brekke KA, Kipperberg G, Nyborg Karine K (2010) Social interaction in responsibility ascription: the case of household recycling. Land Econ 86(4): 766–784
Bruvoll A, Halvorsen B, Nyborg K (2002) Households’ recycling efforts. Resour Conserv Recycl 36(4): 337–354
Bruvoll A, Nyborg K (2004) The cold shiver of not giving enough: on the social cost of recycling campaigns. Land Econ 80(4): 539–549
Caplan AJ, Grijalva TC, Jakus PM (2002) Waste or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal option. Ecol Econ 43: 185–197
Carson RT, Louviere JJ (2011) A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ (Forthcoming)
Chapman RG, Staelin R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J Mark Res 19(3): 288–301
City of Seattle (2009) City of Seattle 2008 Recycling Rate Report. http://www.seattle.gov/util/stellent/groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/spu01_005874.pdf Accessed 5 July 2010
Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd. edn. John Wiley, London
Ferrera I, Missios P (2005) Recycling and waste diversion effectiveness: evidence from Canada. Environ Resour Econ 30(2): 221–238
Freeman AM (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods, 2nd edn. Resources for the Future Press
Fullerton D, Kinnaman TC (1996) Household responses to pricing garbage by the tag. Am Econ Rev 86(4): 971–984
Halvorsen B (2008) Effects of norms and the opportunity cost of time on household recycling. Land Econ 84: 501–516
Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30: 133–176
Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W (2005) Applied choice analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hoel M (1978) Resource extraction and recycling with environmental costs. J Environ Econ Manag 5(3): 220–235
Holländer H (1990) A social exchange approach to voluntary cooperation. Am Econ Rev 80: 1157–1167
Hu W, Veeman M, Adamowicz W, Gao G (2006) Consumers’ food choices with voluntary access to genetic modification information. Can J Agric Econ 54: 585–604
Jamelske E, Kipperberg G (2006) A contingent valuation study and benefit/cost analysis of the switch to automated collection of solid waste with single stream recycling in Madison, Wisconsin. Public Works Manag Policy 11(2): 89–103
Jenkins RR, Martinez SA, Palmer K, Podolsky MJ (2003) The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. J Environ Econ Manag 45(2): 293–318
Kinnaman TC (2000) Explaining the growth in municipal recycling programs: the role of market and non-market factors. Public Works Manag Policy 5(1): 37–51
Kinnaman TC, Fullerton D (2000) The economics of residential solid waste management. In: Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds) The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2000/2001. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 100–147
Kipperberg G (2007) A comparison of household recycling behaviors in Norway and the United States. Environ Resour Econ 36: 215–235
Kotchen MJ (2005) Impure public goods and the comparative statics of environmentally friendly consumption. J Environ Econ Manag 49(2): 281–300
Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2007) Private provision of environmental public goods: household participation in green-electricity programs. J Environ Econ Manag 53: 1–16
Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68: 715–719
Lake IR, Bateman IJ, Parfitt JP (1996) Assessing a kerbside recycling scheme: a quantitative and willingness to pay case study. J Environ Manag 46: 239–254
Layton DF, Lee ST (2006) From ratings to rankings: the econometric analysis of stated preference ratings data. In: Halvorsen R, Layton DF (eds) Explorations in environmental and resource economics: essays in honor of Gardner M. Brown Jr. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 224–244
Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Mackenzie J (1993) A comparison of contingent preference models. Am J Agric Resour Econ 75: 593–603
Morris GE, Holthausen DM Jr (1994) The economics of household solid waste generation and disposal. J Environ Econ Manag 26: 215–234
Nyborg K, Rege M (2003) Does public policy crowd out private contributions to public goods?. Public Choice 115(3): 397–418
Revelt D, Train K (1999) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat LXXX(4): 647–657
Roe B, Boyle KJ, Teisl MF (1996) Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manag 31: 145–159
Ruud P (1996) Approximation and simulation of the multinomial probit model: an analysis of covariance matrix estimation. working paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley. http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~ruud/montreal.pdf. Accessed 5 July, 2010
Siikamaki J, Layton DF (2007) Discrete choice survey experiments: a comparison using flexible methods. J Environ Econ Manag 53: 122–139
Smith VL (1972) Dynamics of waste accumulation: disposal versus recycling. Q J Econ 86(4): 600–616
Tiller KH, Jakus PM, Park WM (1997) Household willingness to pay for drop-off recycling. Am J Agric Resour Econ 22(2): 310–320
Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. 1st. edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Resource conservation challenge. 2005 Action Plan. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/act-plan.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2010
Viscusi WK, Huber J, Jason Bell (2011) Promoting recycling: private values, social norms, and economic incentives. Am Econ Rev 101(3): 65–70
Wertz KL (1976) Economic factors influencing households’ production of refuse. J Environ Econ Manag 2(4): 263–272
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kipperberg, G., Larson, D.M. Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs. Environ Resource Econ 53, 577–604 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9578-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9578-y
Keywords
- Contingent rating
- Environmental policy
- Impure public goods
- Recycling programs
- Panel mixed logit
- Stated preferences
- Willingness to pay