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 Management & Policy

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 89-103

  Jamelske, Eric ^a   Kipperberg, Gorm ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE   (United States)

^b Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

contingent valuation; recycling; single stream; solid waste management; survey; willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 43249176211     PISSN: 1087724X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1087724X06294172     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Aadland, D. A., & Caplan, A. J. (1999). Household valuation of curbside recycling. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(6), 781-799.
2. Aadland, D. A., & Caplan, A. J. (2003). Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 492-502.
3. Aadland, D. A., & Caplan, A. J. (in press). Curbside recycling: Waste resource or waste of resources? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
4. Alberini, A. (1995). Efficiency vs. bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: Bivariate and interval-data models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 169-180.
5. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601-4614.
6. Cameron, T. A. (1988). A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation with censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15, 355-379.
7. Cameron, T. A., & James, M. D. (1987). Efficient estimation for “closed-ended” contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(2), 269-276.
8. Cameron, T. A., & Quiggin, J. (1994). Estimation using contingent valuation data from Dichotomous Choice With Follow-Up Questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27, 218-234.
9. Carson, R. T. (2000). Contingent valuation: A user's guide. Environmental Science & Technology, 34(8), 1413-1418.
10. City officials take second look at single-stream recycling program. (2005). BioCycle, 46(1), 18-18.
11. Dreckmann, G. P. (2004). Automated collection of recyclables and solid waste. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/streets/DreamTeamReport.pdf and http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/streets/Automated%2520Collection%2520Proposal.htm
12. Eureka Recycling. (2002). A comparative analysis of applied recycling collection methods in Saint Paul. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://www.eurekarecycling.org/pdfs/studyreport.pdf
13. Gertman, R., & Kinsella, S. (2006 a). Single stream best practices manual and implementation guide. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.conservatree.com/learn/SolidWaste/singlestream.shtml
14. Gertman, R., & Kinsella, S. (2006 b). Single stream recycling: Best practices. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.conservatree.com/learn/SolidWaste/bestpractices.shtml
15. Goodman, T. (2006). Single stream and dual stream recycling: Comparative impacts of commingled recyclables processing (Paper prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.moea.state.mn.us/publications/commingled.pdf
16. Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(4), 1255-1263.
17. Jamelske, E. M., & Wessling, S. (2005). Assessing the support for the switch to automated collection of solid waste with single stream recycling in Madison, Wisconsin. Public Works Management and Policy, 10(2), 101-118.
18. Kinnaman, T. C. (2000). Explaining the growth in municipal recycling programs: The role of market and nonmarket factors. Public Works Management & Policy, 5(1), 37-51.
19. Kinsella, S. (2006). Single stream: Closing the loop. Resource Recycling, 25(1), 12-18.
20. Kipperberg, G., & Larson, D. (2006). Heterogeneous preferences for community recycling programs: A contingent rating approach. Working paper (revised version), Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis.
21. Lake, I. R., Bateman, I. J., & Parfitt, J. P. (1996). Assessing a kerbside recycling scheme: A quantitative and willingness to pay case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 46, 239-254.
22. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: RFF Press.
23. Nyborg, K. (2000). Homo economicus and homo politicus: Interpretation and aggregation of individual values. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42, 305-322.
24. Paper Industry Association Council. (2006). 2005 American Forest & Paper Association community survey: Executive summary. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.paperrecycles.org/news/research_reports/exec_summ.html
25. Powell, J. (2006). Single stream in perspective. Resource Recycling (special issue). Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.resource-recycling.com/single-stream.html
26. Simmons, P., Goldstein, N., Kaufman, S.M., Themelis N.J., & Thompson, J., Jr. (2006). The state of garbage in America. Biocycle, 47(4), 26-43.
27. Skumatz, L. A. (2004). Single stream recycling: Total cost analysis (Paper prepared for the American Forest and Paper Association). Available at http://www.serainc.com/
28. Tiller, K. H., Jakus, P. M., & Park, W. M. (1997). Household willingness to pay for drop-off recycling. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 22(2), 310-320.
29. Waste Management, Inc. (2006). Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.wm.com/WM/ThinkGreen/recycling/singlestream.asp
30. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2004). Frequently asked questions about single stream recycling in Wisconsin. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/recycle/issues/singlestream.pdf