Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 641–658 | Cite as

Efficiency Effects of Unit-Based Pricing Systems and Institutional Choices of Waste Collection

  • Elbert DijkgraafEmail author
  • Raymond Gradus
Article

Abstract

Municipal residential waste costs are rising. Therefore, it is important to introduce measures that lower waste collection and disposal costs. Based on a large panel data set for the Netherlands we show that unit-based pricing systems are more important from a cost-minimizing point of view than the institutional mode of waste collection. In particular, the bag-based and frequency-based pricing systems are preferred. Moreover, dividing the cost effects between cost price and quantity effects, we illustrate that lower administrative costs and a smaller waste quantity are the most important drivers of cost decreases. It also shows that a disadvantage of the bag-based system is that it is not easy to price compostable waste. In addition, if more general cost functions are analyzed, these estimations suggest that there are economies of scale for small municipalities.

Keywords

Waste collection Cost functions Efficiency Unit-based pricing Administrative costs 

JEL Classification

H31 H71 Q38 

References

  1. Allers M, Hoeben C (2010) Effects of unit-based garbage pricing: a differences-in-differences approach. Environ Resour Econ 45(3):405–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bel G, Fageda X, Warner M (2010a) Is private production of public services cheaper than public production? A meta-regression analysis of solid waste and water services. J Policy Anal Manag 29:553–577Google Scholar
  3. Bel G, Dijkgraaf E, Fageda X, Gradus RHJM (2010b) Similar problems, different solutions: comparing refuse collection in the Netherlands and Spain. Public Adm 88(2):479–496Google Scholar
  4. Bohm R, Folz D, Kinnaman T, Podolsky M (2010) The costs of municipal waste and recycling programs. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:864–871Google Scholar
  5. Brueckner J (2003) Strategic interaction among governments: an overview of empirical studies. Int Reg Urban Econ 26(2):175–188Google Scholar
  6. Callan SJ, Thomas JM (2001) Economies of scale and scope: a cost analysis of municipal solid waste services. Land Econ 77(4):548–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2003) Cost savings of contracting out refuse collection. Empirica 30(2):149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2004) Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: the case of the Netherlands. Resour Energy Econ 26(2):353–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2008) Institutional developments in the Dutch waste collection market. Environ Plan C Govern Pol 26(1):110–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2009) Environmental activism and dynamics of unit-based pricing systems. Resour Energy Econ 31(1):13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2013) Cost advantage cooperations larger than private waste collectors. Appl Econ Lett 20(7):702–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2014) Waste management in the Netherlands. In: Kinnaman T, Takeuchi K (eds) Handbook on waste management. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham (UK), pp 287–315Google Scholar
  13. Domberger S, Jensen P (1997) Contracting out by the public sector: theory, evidence, prospects. Oxf Rev Econ Pol 13(4):67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fullerton D, Kinnaman TC (1996) Household responses to pricing garbage by the bag. Am Econ Rev 86(4):971–984Google Scholar
  15. Gallant AR (1982) Unbiased determination of production technologies. J Econom 20(2):285–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janzen L, Hoeben C (2013) Ontwikkeling gemeentelijke woonlasten 1998–2013, B&G, juli/augustus, blz. 26–29Google Scholar
  17. Kinnaman TC (2006) Examining the justification for residential recycling. J Econ Perspect 20(4):219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kinnaman TC, Fullerton D (2000) Garbage and recycling with endogenous local policy. J Urban Econ 48: 419–442Google Scholar
  19. Linderhof V, Kooreman P, Allers M, Wiersma D (2001) Weight-based pricing in the collection of household waste: the Oostzaan case. Resour Energy Econ 23:359–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nichols A, Schaffer M (2007) Clustered errors in stata. http://www.stata.com/meeting/13uk/nichols_crse.pdf
  21. Reus P, Jonkergouw N (2013) Verkenning inzamelsystemen en inzamelpilots, SRE MilieudienstGoogle Scholar
  22. Sequino S, Criner G, Suarez M (1995) Solid waste management options for maine: the economics of pay-by-the-bag systems. Maine Pol Rev 4:49–58Google Scholar
  23. Simões P, Marques R (2012) On the economic performance of the waste sector. A literature review. J Environ Manag 106:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stevens BJ (1978) Scale, market structure, and the cost of refuse collection. Rev Econ Stat 60(3):438–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Usui T, Takeuchi K (2014) Evaluating unit-based pricing of residential solid waste: a panel data analysis. Environ Resour Econ 58:245–271Google Scholar
  26. VROM (1997) Ervaringen met tariefdifferentiatie en huishoudelijk afval (experience with differentiated tariffs and domestic waste) Ministry of Environmental Affairs, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  27. Yang HL, Innes R (2007) Economic incentives and residential waste management in Taiwan: an empirical investigation. Environ Resour Econ 37:489–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rotterdam School of EconomicsErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.VU University AmsterdamFaculty of Economics and Business AdministrationAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations