Skip to main content

Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Aadland DA, Caplan AJ (1999) Household valuation of curbside recycling. J Environ Plan Manag 42(6): 781–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aadland DA, Caplan AJ (2006) Curbside recycling: waste resource or waste of resources?. J Policy Anal Manag 25(4): 855–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ackerman F (1997) Why do we recycle? Markets, values, and public policy. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  5. Akerlof GA, Kranton RE (2000) Economics and identity. Q J Econ CXV(3): 715–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Allers MA, Hoeben C (2010) Effects of unit-based garbage pricing: a differences-in-differences approach. Environ Resour Econ 45: 405–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow-giving. Econ J 100: 464–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J (1981) Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 17(1): 1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boyle KJ, Holmes TP, Teisl MF, Roe B (2001) A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 83(2): 441–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Breffle WS, Rowe RD (2002) Comparing choice question formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs. Land Econ 78(2): 298–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brekke KA, Kverndokk S, Nyborg K (2003) An economic model of moral motivation. J Public Econ 87 (9–10): 1967–1983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brekke KA, Kipperberg G, Nyborg Karine K (2010) Social interaction in responsibility ascription: the case of household recycling. Land Econ 86(4): 766–784

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bruvoll A, Halvorsen B, Nyborg K (2002) Households’ recycling efforts. Resour Conserv Recycl 36(4): 337–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Carson RT, Louviere JJ (2011) A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ (Forthcoming)

  20. Chapman RG, Staelin R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J Mark Res 19(3): 288–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

  22. Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd. edn. John Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ferrera I, Missios P (2005) Recycling and waste diversion effectiveness: evidence from Canada. Environ Resour Econ 30(2): 221–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Freeman AM (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods, 2nd edn. Resources for the Future Press

  25. Fullerton D, Kinnaman TC (1996) Household responses to pricing garbage by the tag. Am Econ Rev 86(4): 971–984

    Google Scholar 

  26. Halvorsen B (2008) Effects of norms and the opportunity cost of time on household recycling. Land Econ 84: 501–516

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30: 133–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W (2005) Applied choice analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Hoel M (1978) Resource extraction and recycling with environmental costs. J Environ Econ Manag 5(3): 220–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Holländer H (1990) A social exchange approach to voluntary cooperation. Am Econ Rev 80: 1157–1167

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kipperberg G (2007) A comparison of household recycling behaviors in Norway and the United States. Environ Resour Econ 36: 215–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kotchen MJ (2005) Impure public goods and the comparative statics of environmentally friendly consumption. J Environ Econ Manag 49(2): 281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2007) Private provision of environmental public goods: household participation in green-electricity programs. J Environ Econ Manag 53: 1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68: 715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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

  42. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Mackenzie J (1993) A comparison of contingent preference models. Am J Agric Resour Econ 75: 593–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Morris GE, Holthausen DM Jr (1994) The economics of household solid waste generation and disposal. J Environ Econ Manag 26: 215–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nyborg K, Rege M (2003) Does public policy crowd out private contributions to public goods?. Public Choice 115(3): 397–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Revelt D, Train K (1999) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat LXXX(4): 647–657

    Google Scholar 

  47. Roe B, Boyle KJ, Teisl MF (1996) Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manag 31: 145–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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

  49. Siikamaki J, Layton DF (2007) Discrete choice survey experiments: a comparison using flexible methods. J Environ Econ Manag 53: 122–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Smith VL (1972) Dynamics of waste accumulation: disposal versus recycling. Q J Econ 86(4): 600–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Tiller KH, Jakus PM, Park WM (1997) Household willingness to pay for drop-off recycling. Am J Agric Resour Econ 22(2): 310–320

    Google Scholar 

  52. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. 1st. edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. 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

  54. Viscusi WK, Huber J, Jason Bell (2011) Promoting recycling: private values, social norms, and economic incentives. Am Econ Rev 101(3): 65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wertz KL (1976) Economic factors influencing households’ production of refuse. J Environ Econ Manag 2(4): 263–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gorm Kipperberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Contingent rating
  • Environmental policy
  • Impure public goods
  • Recycling programs
  • Panel mixed logit
  • Stated preferences
  • Willingness to pay

JEL Classification

  • Q51
  • Q53
  • D12
  • C25
  • H44