Assessing instruments for mixed household solid waste collection services in the Flemish region of Belgium

Abstract Instruments to reduce waste can be divided into three groups: first, pecuniary incentives; second, service level; finally, measurements stimulating prevention and waste reduction. Also specific characteristics of the community determine the amount of waste generated. We evaluate whether findings in literature on effectiveness of policy measures are valid for Belgium, specifically for the Flemish region. The policy mix instituted by the Flemish authorities in the ‘implementation plan household waste 2003–2007’ and implemented by local authorities, is assessed. Multiple regression analysis identifies those measurements having the greatest impact on household solid waste. We found an income elasticity of 0.326. Also the provided service level has a significant impact. Pecuniary incentives are effective instruments in reducing waste, with a price elasticity of −0.139. Furthermore, a higher percentage of direct costs, directly attributable to waste services, borne by households, reduces waste. A consequent implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle proves to be effective.

[1]  Jess W. Everett,et al.  Curbside Recycling in the U.S.a.: Convenience and Mandatory Participation , 1993 .

[2]  David H. Folz,et al.  Municipal Experience with “Pay-as-You-Throw” Policies: Findings from a National Survey , 2002 .

[3]  Peter Kemper,et al.  The economics of refuse collection , 1976 .

[4]  Marie K. Harder,et al.  Waste minimisation : Home digestion trials of biodegradable waste , 2005 .

[5]  K. Wertz,et al.  Economic factors influencing households' production of refuse , 1976 .

[6]  Marie Lynn Miranda,et al.  Market-based Incentives and Residential Municipal Solid Waste , 1994 .

[7]  James D. Reschovsky,et al.  Market incentives to encourage household waste recycling: Paying for what you throw away , 1994 .

[8]  M K Harder,et al.  The development of a UK kerbside scheme using known practice. , 2005, Journal of environmental management.

[9]  Thomas C. Kinnaman,et al.  The Economics of Residential Solid Waste Management , 1999 .

[10]  R. A. Richardson,et al.  Economic analysis of the composition of household solid wastes , 1978 .

[11]  Richard M. Adams,et al.  An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid Wastes: The Case of Portland, Oregon , 1993 .

[12]  Brenda Platt.  Beyond 40 percent : record-setting recycling and composting programs , 1991 .

[13]  Paul S Phillips,et al.  Determining the drivers for householder pro-environmental behaviour: waste minimisation compared to recycling , 2004 .

[14]  Thomas C. Kinnaman,et al.  Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag , 1994 .

[15]  Clarence G. Golueke,et al.  Comprehensive studies of solid waste management , 1970 .

[16]  G. Morris,et al.  The Economics of Household Solid Waste Generation and Disposal , 1994 .

[17]  Robin R. Jenkins.  THE ECONOMICS OF SOLID WASTE REDUCTION , 1993 .

[18]  F. McDougall,et al.  Euro-trash: searching Europe for a more sustainable approach to waste management , 2001 .

[19]  Don Fullerton,et al.  Garbage and Recycling in Communities with Curbside Recycling and Unit-Based Pricing , 1997 .

[20]  Michael J. Podolsky,et al.  Municipal Waste Disposal: Unit Pricing and Recycling Opportunities , 1998 .

[21]  Douglas B. Cargo.  Solid Wastes: Factors Influencing Generation Rates , 1977 .

[22]  Elbert Dijkgraaf,et al.  Cost Savings of Unit-Based Pricing of Household Waste: The Case of the Netherlands , 2004 .

[23]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Economic Instruments and Waste Minimization: The Need for Discard-Relevant and Purchase-Relevant Instruments , 1995 .