Explaining Rural Household Participation in Recycling

Abstract

Rising landfill costs have forced solid waste managers to consider waste stream reduction alternatives such as household recycling. Explaining the factors which motivate households to recycle is important to regions where households must bear a large portion of the recycling cost because unit-based garbage disposal fees and curbside recycling are not feasible options. Empirical results indicate that residents are responsive to constraints introduced by the household production technology, such as time costs and storage space, but are not responsive to variables measuring a recycling promotional program. Promotion efforts should switch focus from broader “public good” benefits of recycling to reducing household-level household production constraints.

Model of Chinese Household Kitchen Waste Separation Behavior: A Case Study in Beijing City

“…Many researchers have identified means of how to successfully conduct source separation in developed countries, such as in Sweden by Dahlén et al [9], and in Spain by Gallardo et al [10,11]. Meanwhile, variables that affect household separation in developed countries have also been discovered, such as the distance between containers and citizens [11,12], convenient infrastructure [5], environmental policy [13], and waste charges [14][15][16][17]. Furthermore, several studies have recognized how household waste charges affect a household's source separation behavior in developing countries, and most of the residents prefer household kitchen waste separation services with frequent, evening, plastic bag attributes and without instructors in big cities of developing countries [3,18].…”

The Economics of Residential Solid Waste Management

“…Residents would voluntarily transport certain materials (usually newspaper, aluminum cans, and perhaps glass). Jakus et al (1996) estimate that rural households devote an average of 90 seconds to recycle one unit of glass and one unit of old newspaper. Given the opportunity cost of household time, households paid $1.29 to recycle one pound of each material.…”

“…Given the opportunity cost of household time, households paid $1.29 to recycle one pound of each material. Based on quantities recycled, Jakus et al (1996) estimate that these households value local access to drop-off facilities at $5.78 per month.…”

“…Recycling beyond this threshold is costly. Kinnaman (1998) and Jakus et al (1996) estimate the political/environmental benefits of curbside recycling through use of contingent valuation surveys. In a survey of 100 households, Kinnaman (1998) finds that households are on average willing to pay about $86 per year to keep curbside recycling of newspaper, glass, and aluminum.…”

“…In a survey of 100 households, Kinnaman (1998) finds that households are on average willing to pay about $86 per year to keep curbside recycling of newspaper, glass, and aluminum. Jakus et al (1996) estimate that households are willing to pay $69.36 per year for curbside collection of newspaper and glass. In addition, Tiller et al (1997) estimate that suburban households that classify themselves as recyclers are willing to pay $11.74 per month for drop-off recycling facilities.…”