Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Solid waste management program in developing countries: contingent valuation methodology versus choice experiment

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The willingness to pay by households in Vietnam to improve collection and processing services linked to source-separated municipal solid waste (MSW) is investigated in this research. This study contributes to the current literature by comparing welfare benefits derived from contingent valuation methodology and choice experiments for changes to waste service provision. The respondents were also stratified, for the first time, into households with/without previously sorted waste and across urbanization grades. Our results return broadly consistent willingness to pay estimates across the two methodologies and offers evidence that MSW sustainable management—a priority need in developing countries—may be addressed by positively enticing residents into a new fee-for-service program, but only where social benefits from such engagement are made clear. Interestingly, residents in lower urbanization grades, and those who have not previously sorted waste, reveal higher WTP values. Our results suggest that respondents are most interested in a wider selection of separated material options (i.e., recycled, organic and residual) as well as the potential for CO2 emission reductions associated with new waste management programs. We argue that the application of both stated preference techniques widens the set of policy input factors available to government officials and ensures useful evidence for structuring future engagement programs to address those who retain a preference for the status quo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Data is available from the corresponding author upon request.

Notes

  1. US$1 was equal to 22,890 Vietnamese Dong (VND) on June 30th, 2021.

References

  • Aadland, D., & Caplan, A. J. (2006). Curbside recycling: Waste resource or waste of resources? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: THe Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management., 25(4), 855–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adeoti, A., & Obidi, B. (2010). Poverty and preference for improved solid waste management attributes in Delta-State, Nigeria. Journal of Rural Economics and Development 19(1623–2016–134902), 15–33.

  • Altaf, M. A., & Deshazo, J. R. (1996). Household demand for improved solid waste management: A case study of Gujranwala, Pakistan. World Development, 24(5), 857–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anaman, K. A., & Jair, R. M. (2000). Contingent valuation of solid waste collection services for rural households in Brunei Darussalam. The Singapore Economic Review, 45, 223–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (2001). Foreword. In I. Bateman & K. Willis (Eds.), Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries (pp. 1–14). Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior, 24(5), 602–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., & Sugden, R. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual.

  • Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1996). A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 18(3), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, P., Singh, B., & Tewari, V. P. (2007). Non-market economic valuation in developing countries: Role of participant observation method in CVM analysis. Journal of Forest Economics, 13(4), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contu, D., & Mourato, S. (2020). Complementing choice experiment with contingent valuation data: Individual preferences and views towards IV generation nuclear energy in the UK. Energy Policy, 136, 111032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowski, M., Kądziela, T., & Hanley, N. (2014a). We want to sort! Assessing households’ preferences for sorting waste. Resource and Energy Economics., 36(1), 290–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., & Nyborg, K., (2014b). Social norms, morals and self-interest as determinants of pro-environment behaviours (No. 18/2014b). Memorandum.

  • Damigos, D., Kaliampakos, D., & Menegaki, M. (2016). How much are people willing to pay for efficient waste management schemes? A benefit transfer application. Waste Management & Research, 34(4), 345–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, P., Mukherjee, S., & Sen, R. (2008). Improved bioavailability and biodegradation of a model polyaromatic hydrocarbon by a biosurfactant producing bacterium of marine origin. Chemosphere, 72(9), 1229–1234.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Young, R. (1986). Some psychological aspects of recycling: The structure of conservation-satisfactions. Environment and Behavior, 18(4), 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diafas, I. (2016). Estimating the Economic Value of forest ecosystem services using stated preference methods: The case of Kakamega forest, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, Niedersächsische Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen).

  • Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, S., & Marques, R. C. (2015). Contingent valuation method applied to waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 99, 111–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuda, K., Isdwiyani, R., Kawata, K., & Yoshida, Y. (2018). Measuring the impact of modern waste collection and processing service attributes on residents’ acceptance of waste separation policy using a randomised conjoint field experiment in Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia. Waste Management & Research., 36(9), 841–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, G., & Willis, K. (1998). Estimating lost amenity due to landfill waste disposal. Resources, Conservation and Recycling., 22, 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghanbari, F., Sharee, F. A., Monavari, M., & Zaredar, N. (2012). A new method for environmental site assessment of urban solid waste landfills. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment., 184, 1221–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, R., & Bennett, J. (2013). Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(3), 362–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Vietnam. (2007). Decree 59 on solid waste management 59/2007/ND-CP dated April 09, 2007. Hanoi.

  • Government of Vietnam. (2020). Directive No. 33/CT-TTg of the Prime Minister: On strengthening the management, reuse, recycling, treatment and reduction of plastic waste. Hanoi.

  • Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R. E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D., & Crabtree, B. (1998a). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics., 49(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Adamowicz, V. (1998b). Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics., 11(3), 413–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Koop, G. (2002). Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: Climbing in Scotland. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22(3), 449–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, J., Wang, Z., & Ran, S. (2006a). Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecological Economics., 57(3), 430–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, J., He, R., Wang, W., & Gong, H. (2018). Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China. Land Use Policy, 74, 214–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, J., Wang, Z., & Ran, S. (2006b). Estimating the public preferences for solid waste management programmes using choice experiments in Macao. Waste Management & Research, 24(4), 301–309.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., Tourangeau, R., & Vossler, C. A. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4, 319–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karousakis, K., & Birol, E. (2008). Investigating household preferences for kerbside recycling services in London: A choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1099–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipperberg, G., & Larson, D. M. (2012). Heterogeneous preferences for community recycling programs. Environmental and Resource Economics, 53(4), 577–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, S., Kim, W., Shin, S.-C., & Shin, J. (2020). The economic value of sustainable recycling and waste management policies: The case of a waste management crisis in South Korea. Waste Management, 104, 220–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M., Choi, H., & Koo, Y. (2017). Inconvenience cost of waste disposal behavior in South Korea. Ecological Economics, 140, 58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M., & Li, C.-Z. (2003). Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science & Policy, 6, 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, L., & Tietenberg, T. (2019). Environmental economics and policy. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior a theoretical analysis. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maimoun, M. A., Reinhart, D. R., & Madani, K. (2016). An environmental-economic assessment of residential curbside collection programs in Central Florida. Waste Management, 54, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massarutto, A., Marangon, F., Troiano, S., & Favot, M. (2019). Moral duty, warm glow or self-interest? A choice experiment study on motivations for domestic garbage sorting in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 916–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miafodzyeva, S., & Brandt, N. (2013). Recycling behaviour among householders: Synthesizing determinants via a meta-analysis. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 4(2), 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Finance of Vietnam. (2015). Financial resources for environmental protection for the period 2011–2015, orientation for the period 2016–2020. The 4th National Environment Conference

  • Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Vietnam. (2016). Report on the current state of the national environment for the period 2011–2015. Publishing House of Natural Resources - Environment and Maps of Vietnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Vietnam. (2017). Report on the current state of the national environment 2016. Publishing House of Natural Resources - Environment and Map of Vietnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Vietnam. (2018). Report on the current state of the national environment 2017. Publishing House of Natural Resources - Environment and Maps of Vietnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Vietnam. (2020). Report on the state of the national environment in 2019. Dan Tri Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moh, Y. (2017). Solid waste management transformation and future challenges of source separation and recycling practice in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 116, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M., Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. (1999). Valuing improved wetland quality using choice modeling. Water Resources Research, 35(9), 2805–2814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nainggolan, D., Pedersen, A. B., Smed, S., Zemo, K. H., Hasler, B., & Termansen, M. (2019a). Consumers in a circular economy: Economic analysis of household waste sorting behaviour. Ecological Economics, 166, 106402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nainggolan, R., Perangin-angin, R., Simarmata, E., & Tarigan, A. F. (2019b). Improved the performance of the K-means cluster using the sum of squared error (SSE) optimized by using the Elbow method. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1361(1), 012015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Othman, J. (2007). Economic valuation of household preference for solid waste management in Malaysia: A choice modeling approach. International Journal of Management Studies (IJMS)., 14(1), 189–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Othman, J. (2002). Household preferences for solid waste management in Malaysia. EEPSEA research report series/IDRC. Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia; no. 2002-RR8.

  • Padilla, A. J., & Trujillo, J. C. (2018). Waste disposal and households’ heterogeneity. Identifying factors shaping attitudes towards source-separated recycling in Bogotá, Colombia. Waste Management, 74, 16–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D., & Howarth, A. (2000). Technical report on methodology: cost benefit analysis and policy responses. RIVM report 481505020. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment

  • Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

  • Pek, C. K., & Othman, J. (2010). Household demand for solid waste disposal options in Malaysia.

  • Rahji, M. A. Y., & Oloruntoba, E. O. (2009). Determinants of households’ willingness to pay for private solid waste management services in Ibadan, Nigeria. Waste Management & Research., 27(10), 961–965.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ready, R. C., Buzby, J. C., & Hu, D. (1996). Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics., 72(3) 397–411.

  • Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2001). Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: A technical document supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 revision). USDA Forest Service.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sakata, Y. (2007). A choice experiment of the residential preference of waste management services–The example of Kagoshima city, Japan. Waste Management., 27(5), 639–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soderholm, P. (Ed.). (2013). Environmental policy and household behaviour: sustainability and everyday life. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, T. H., Belkner, R., Dennis, D., Kittredge, D., & Willis, C. (2000). Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecological Economics., 32(1), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarfasa, S., & Brouwer, R. (2018). Public preferences for improved urban waste management: A choice experiment. Environment and Development Economics., 23(2), 184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C., & Sharp, V. (2013). Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: A review of social norms and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verplanken, B., & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? European Review of Social Psychology., 10(1), 101–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, T. L., Sheeran, P., & Luszczynska, A. (2009). Planning to break unwanted habits: Habit strength moderates implementation intention effects on behaviour change. British Journal of Social Psychology., 48(3), 507–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2018). Report on solid and industrial hazardous waste management assessment options and action areas to implement the national strategy. Hong Duc Publishing House. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/352371563196189492/pdf/Solid-and-industrialhazardous-waste-management-assessment-options-and-actions-areas.pdf

  • Whitehead, J. C. (2006). A practitioner’s primer on contingent valuation method. In: Alberini A, Kahn JR, editors. Handbook on contingent valuation. Cheltenham and MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

  • Willis, K. G., & Garrod, G. D. (1999). Angling and recreation values of low-flow alleviation in rivers. Journal of Environmental Management, 57(2), 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y., & Yabe, M. (2015). Residents’ preferences for household kitchen waste source separation services in Beijing: A choice experiment approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health., 12(1), 176–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yusuf, S. A., Salimonu, K. K., & Ojo, O. T. (2007). Determinants of willingness to pay for improved household solid waste management in Oyo State. Nigeria. Research Journal of Applied Sciences., 2(3), 233–239.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is funded in part by the Can Tho University Improvement Project VN14-P6, supported by a Japanese ODA loan.

Funding

This study is funded in part by the Can Tho University Improvement Project VN14-P6, supported by a Japanese ODA loan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics, Can Tho University, Can Tho, Vietnam

    Xuan Thi Dan Huynh, Tien Dung Khong & Huynh Viet Khai

  2. Centre for Global Food and Resources, School of Economics and Public Policy, Faculty of Arts, Business, Law and Economics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Adam Loch

Authors
  1. Xuan Thi Dan Huynh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tien Dung Khong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adam Loch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huynh Viet Khai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Xuan Thi Dan Huynh and Tien Dung Khong. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Xuan Thi Dan Huynh and Tien Dung Khong and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tien Dung Khong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huynh, X.T.D., Khong, T.D., Loch, A. et al. Solid waste management program in developing countries: contingent valuation methodology versus choice experiment. Environ Dev Sustain 25, 12395–12417 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02572-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02572-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation