Electronic waste recycling preferences in California: The role of environmental attitudes and behaviors

IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 251-256

  Nixon, Hilary ^a   Ogunseitan, Oladele A ^b   Saphores, Jean Daniel ^b   Shapiro, Andrew A ^b  

^a SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent ranking; Electronic waste; Environmental attitudes and behaviors; Rank ordered logit; Recycling

Indexed keywords

ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; RECYCLING; REGIONAL PLANNING; SOCIAL ASPECTS; WASTES;

CONTINGENT RANKING; ELECTRONIC WASTES; ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS; RANK-ORDERED LOGIT;

DOMESTIC APPLIANCES;

EID: 34548707040     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/ISEE.2007.369403     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. nd ed.). Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, 1995.
2. Bateman, I.J., Cole, M.A., Georgiou, S. & Hadley, D. J., Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: A case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. Journal of Environmental Management, 79:221-231, 2006.
3. Beggs, S., Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics, 16:1-19, 1981.
4. California Integrated Waste Management Board, Statewide Waste Characterization Study (No. 340-04-005). Sacramento, CA, 2004.
5. Caplan, A.J., Grijalva, T.C & Jakus, P.M., Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options. Ecological Economics, 43:185-197, 2002.
6. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures (No. EPA530-R-03-011). Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 2003.
7. Foster, V. & Mourato, S., Valuing the multiple impacts of pesticide use in the UK: A contingent ranking approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51:1-21, 2000.
8. Foster, V. & Mourato, S., Testing for consistency in contingent ranking experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44:309-328, 2002.
9. Garrod, G.D. & Willis, K.G., The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study. Ecological Economics, 21:45-61, 1997.
10. Garrod, G. & Willis, K., Using contingent ranking to estimate the loss of amenity value for inland water-ways from public utility service structures. Environmental and Resource Economics, 12:241-247, 1998.
11. Harris, B. & Burress, D., Demands for local and organic produce: A brief review of the literature Institute for Public Policy and Business Research, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 2000.
12. Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M. & Narayana, C., Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Socio-Economics, 24:105-127, 1995.
13. Hownestine, E., Market segmentation for recycling. Environment and Behavior, 25:86-102, 1993.
14. International Association of Electronics Recyclers [IAER], IAER Electronics Recycling Industry Report. Resources Recycling, Portland, OR, 2006.
15. Isangkura, A., Environmental Valuation: An Entrance Fee System for National Parks in Thailand. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, 1998.
16. Jakus, P.M., Tiller, K.H. & Park, W.M., Generation of recyclables by rural households. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21:96-108, 1996.
17. Jakus, P.M., Tiller, K.H. & Park, W.M., Explaining rural household participation in recycling. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29:141-148, 1997.
18. Jenkins, R.R., Martinez, S.A., Palmer, K. & Podolsky, M.J., The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45:294-318, 2003.
19. Johnson, C.Y., Bowker, J.M. & Cordell, H.K., Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: An examination of the New Ecological Paradigm in a social psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 36:157-186, 2004.
20. Krystallis, A. & Chryssohoidis, G., Consumers' willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. British Food Journal, 107:320-343, 2005.
21. Lareau, T.J. & Rae, D.A., Valuing WTP for Diesel Odor Reductions: An Application of Contingent Ranking. Southern Economic Journal, 55:728-742, 1989.
22. Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. & Barbara-Forleo, G. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18:503-520, 2001.
23. Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G. & Grice, J., Choosing organics: A path analysis of factors underlying the selection of organic food among Australian consumers. Appetite, 43:135-146, 2004.
24. Long, J. S. & Freese, J., Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. 2 ed. Stata Press, College Station, 2006.
25. Loureiro, M. L. & Hine, S., Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labeling policies. Food Policy, 29:467-483, 2004.
26. Machado, F.S. & Mourato, S., Evaluating the multiple benefits of marine water quality improvements: How important are health risk reductions? Journal of Environmental Management, 65:239-250, 2002.
27. McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: P. Zarembka (Editor), Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, 1974.
28. Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T., Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 1989.
29. Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., & Foster, V., Evaluating healthy and environmental impacts of pesticide use: Implications for the design of ecolabels and pesticide taxes. Environmental Science and Technology, 34:1456-1461, 2000.
30. Nixon, H. & Saphores, J.-D., Financing electronic waste recycling: Californian households' willingness to pay advanced recycling fees. Journal of Environmental Management, in press.
31. Nixon, H., Saphores, J.-D., Ogunseitan, O. & Shapiro, A., Understanding preferences for recycling electronic waste in California: A contingent ranking study. Working paper, Program in Industrial Ecology, UC Irvine, 2007.
32. Oskamp, S., Resource conservation and recycling: Behavior and policy. Journal of Social Issues, 51:157-173, 1995.
33. Reschovsky, J.D. & Stone, S.E., Market incentives to encourage household waste recycling: Paying for what you throw away. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13:120-139, 1994.
34. Saphores, J.-D., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O. & Shapiro, A., Household willingness to recycle electronic waste: An application to California. Environment and Behavior, 38:183-208, 2006.
35. Saphores, J.-D., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O. & Shapiro, A., California households' willingness to pay for "green" electronics. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50:113-133, 2007.
36. Schultz, P.W., Oskamp, S. & Mainieri, T., Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15:105-121, 1995.
37. Slothuus, U., Slothuus, U., Larsen, M.L. & Junker, P., The contingent ranking method: A feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care? Social Science & Medicine, 54:1601-1609, 2002.
38. Smith, V.K. & Desvouges, W.H., Measuring water quality benefits. Kluwer, Boston, 1986.
39. Sterner, T. & Bartelings, H., Household waste management in a Swedish municipality: Determinants of waste disposal, recycling and composting. Environmental and Resource Economics, 13:473-491, 1999.
40. Townsend, T.G. & Musson, S.E., Assessing the landfill disposal implication of discarded electronic equipment. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Piscataway, NJ, pp. 298-301, 2006.