An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: a comparison of payment card and referendum approaches.

Curbside recycling is a tool that communities use to reduce the need for landfill space. This study provides contingent valuation estimates of household willingness to pay (WTP) to continue a curbside recycling program in the face of budget cuts. Comparisons of two forms of the contingent valuation method (CVM) are provided: a single bounded referendum and a payment card. Neither approach emerges as unambiguously superior. Response rates were virtually identical. Both approaches show that support for curbside recycling is highly sensitive to price. Regression results from the payment card provided a more thorough identification of socio-demographic variables associated with WTP than the referendum, but the explanatory power of the two regressions did not differ significantly. The referendum estimates of mean WTP exceed those from the payment card, although the disparities are less than those typically reported in the CVM literature. Local policy makers cited the CVM results as influencing their decisions regarding funding options for the future of the program, and seemed to appreciate the fact that the two approaches provided a fairly narrow range of estimates of WTP. In an era when more of the burden of financing of environmental programs is being shifted to the local level, use of CVM to estimate the WTP of consumers for highly disaggregated goods and services designed to achieve environmental improvement will likely become more relevant to local decision makers who are interested in understanding their constituents' views.

[1]  Robin R. Jenkins,et al.  The Determinants of Household Recycling: A Material Specific Analysis of Unit Pricing and Recycling Program Attributes , 1999 .

[2]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 1993 .

[3]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models , 1995 .

[4]  D. Dillman Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[5]  R. V. Krejcie,et al.  Determining Sample Size for Research Activities , 1970 .

[6]  D. Mercer,et al.  Valuing a Global Environmental Good: U.S. Residents' Willingness to Pay to Protect Tropical Rain Forests , 1997 .

[7]  David R. Cox The analysis of binary data , 1970 .

[8]  Scott J. Callan,et al.  Economies of Scale and Scope: A Cost Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Services , 2001, Land Economics.

[9]  Clifford S. Russell,et al.  Willingness to Pay : Referendum Contingent Valuation and Uncertain Project Benefits , 1999 .

[10]  David Aadland,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias , 2003 .

[11]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Assessing a Kerbside Recycling Scheme: A Quantitative and Willingness to Pay Case Study , 1996 .

[12]  D. J. Rodriguez,et al.  Obtaining Welfare Bounds in Discrete-Response Valuation Studies: Comment , 2001, Land Economics.

[13]  Michael P. Welsh,et al.  Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions , 2002, Land Economics.

[14]  Stuart Oskamp,et al.  Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors , 1995 .

[15]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same? , 2002 .

[16]  M. Christie A comparison of alternative contingent valuation elicitation treatments for the evaluation of complex environmental policy. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[17]  L. Miller,et al.  Handling Nonresponse Issues. , 1983 .

[18]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation , 2002 .

[19]  B. Turnbull The Empirical Distribution Function with Arbitrarily Grouped, Censored, and Truncated Data , 1976 .

[20]  M. Pauly,et al.  Universal health insurance in the Clinton plan: coverage as a tax-financed public good. , 1994, The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association.

[21]  Joanne Vining,et al.  What Makes a Recycler? , 1990 .

[22]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1959 .

[23]  Anni Huhtala,et al.  How much do money, inconvenience and pollution matter? Analysing households» demand for large-scale recycling and incineration , 1999 .

[24]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data , 1989 .

[25]  Kelly H. Tiller,et al.  Household Willingness to Pay for Dropoff Recycling , 1997 .

[26]  Randall A. Kramer,et al.  Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species , 1999 .

[27]  M. Blaug The methodology of economics, or, How economists explain , 1980 .

[28]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[29]  Bengt Kriström,et al.  A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. , 1990 .

[30]  Alan Randall,et al.  Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit-Cost Test: Reply , 1989 .

[31]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good , 1996 .