Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 53, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 577-604

  Kipperberg, Gorm ^a   Larson, Douglas M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

DATA HANDLING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; MIXED LOGIT; PUBLIC GOODS; RECYCLING PROGRAMS; STATED PREFERENCES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

RECYCLING;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; HETEROGENEITY; HOUSEHOLD SURVEY; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; POLICY MAKING; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; PUBLIC GOODS; RANKING; RECYCLING; WASTE MANAGEMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SEATTLE; UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES];

EID: 84870850813     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-012-9578-y     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Aadland DA, Caplan AJ (1999) Household valuation of curbside recycling. J Environ Plan Manag 42(6): 781-799.
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.
3. Aadland DA, Caplan AJ (2006) Curbside recycling: waste resource or waste of resources?. J Policy Anal Manag 25(4): 855-874.
4. Ackerman F (1997) Why do we recycle? Markets, values, and public policy. Island Press, Washington.
5. Akerlof GA, Kranton RE (2000) Economics and identity. Q J Econ CXV(3): 715-753.
6. Allers MA, Hoeben C (2010) Effects of unit-based garbage pricing: a differences-in-differences approach. Environ Resour Econ 45: 405-428.
7. Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow-giving. Econ J 100: 464-477.
8. Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J (1981) Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 17(1): 1-19.
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.
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.
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.
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.
13. Breffle WS, Rowe RD (2002) Comparing choice question formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs. Land Econ 78(2): 298-314.
14. Brekke KA, Kverndokk S, Nyborg K (2003) An economic model of moral motivation. J Public Econ 87 (9-10): 1967-1983.
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.
16. Bruvoll A, Halvorsen B, Nyborg K (2002) Households' recycling efforts. Resour Conserv Recycl 36(4): 337-354.
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.
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.
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.
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.
23. Ferrera I, Missios P (2005) Recycling and waste diversion effectiveness: evidence from Canada. Environ Resour Econ 30(2): 221-238.
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.
26. Halvorsen B (2008) Effects of norms and the opportunity cost of time on household recycling. Land Econ 84: 501-516.
27. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30: 133-176.
28. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W (2005) Applied choice analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. Hoel M (1978) Resource extraction and recycling with environmental costs. J Environ Econ Manag 5(3): 220-235.
30. Holländer H (1990) A social exchange approach to voluntary cooperation. Am Econ Rev 80: 1157-1167.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
36. Kipperberg G (2007) A comparison of household recycling behaviors in Norway and the United States. Environ Resour Econ 36: 215-235.
37. Kotchen MJ (2005) Impure public goods and the comparative statics of environmentally friendly consumption. J Environ Econ Manag 49(2): 281-300.
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.
39. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68: 715-719.
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.
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.
43. Mackenzie J (1993) A comparison of contingent preference models. Am J Agric Resour Econ 75: 593-603.
44. Morris GE, Holthausen DM Jr (1994) The economics of household solid waste generation and disposal. J Environ Econ Manag 26: 215-234.
45. Nyborg K, Rege M (2003) Does public policy crowd out private contributions to public goods?. Public Choice 115(3): 397-418.
46. Revelt D, Train K (1999) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat LXXX(4): 647-657.
47. Roe B, Boyle KJ, Teisl MF (1996) Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manag 31: 145-159.
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.
50. Smith VL (1972) Dynamics of waste accumulation: disposal versus recycling. Q J Econ 86(4): 600-616.
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.
52. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. 1st. edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
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.
55. Wertz KL (1976) Economic factors influencing households' production of refuse. J Environ Econ Manag 2(4): 263-272.