Household response to the loss of publicly provided waste removal: a Saskatchewan case study

Wasting Time? Recycling Incentives in Urban Taiwan and Japan

“…This is consistent with studies that have used a travel cost approach to estimating the value of waste collection (e.g. Salkie et al 2001), although in our case the time elapsed includes both storage in house and the time cost of the chosen option for disposing of stored waste. The approach implies that aside from the collection fee, p d , the cost of disposal can be approximated by the time costs involved.…”

Determinants Of Residents Recycling Behaviour

“…The age variable is also significant -those who are 25 to 45 years old are less likely to recycle "a large amount" of material compared to residents in the 45 to 65 age category. The model"s fit (-2LL = 448.80; Nagelkerke R 2 = .112; percent predicted correct = 62.4%; Hosmer and Lemeshow χ 2 = .315, p = .989) is quite acceptable considering that the amount of explained variation in the dependent variable reported in other studies on household recycling behavior was often between .10 to .20 (e.g., Bagozzi and Dabholkar, 1994;Sterner and Bartelings, 1999;Berglund, 2006), percent predicted correct was frequently between 50%-60% (Salkie et al, 2001), and -2LL values were often above 500.00 (Jenkins et al, 2003;Ferrara and Missios, 2005;Berglund, 2006).…”

Differences in waste generation, waste composition, and source separation across three waste districts in a New York suburb

“…Recycling performance has been found to relate to three classes of recycling attributes: program characteristics; target population socio-demographic characteristics; and target population psychological characteristics. So, Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) programs have higher recycling rates to minimize participant disposal costs (Dahlen and Lagerkvist 2010;Skumatz 2008;Folz and Giles 2002;Linderhof et al 2001;Salkie et al 2001;Callen and Thomas 1999;Miranda and Aldy 1999), mandatory recycling programs have greater participation rates than voluntary programs (Viscusi et al 2012;Nixon and Saphores 2009;Ferrara and Missios 2005), curbside collection has better performance than drop-off programs (Best 2009;Ebreo and Vining 2000) and public outreach increases recycling (Sidique et al 2010;Nixon and Saphores 2009;Callen and Thomas 1999;Fransson and Garling 1999;Read 1999;Scott 1999;Daneshvary et al 1998). Factors such as differences in age (Sidique et al 2010;Diamantopoulos et al 2003;Scott 1999), income (Jones et al 2010;Ferrara and Missios 2005;Berger 1997), education (Nixon and Saphores 2009;Jenkins et al 2003), socio-economic status (Mukherjee and Onel 2012), homeownership (Oskamp 1995), political ideology (Fransson and Gärling 1999), race (Johnson et al 2004), household size (Lebersorger and Beigl 2011), and employment (Bach et al 2004) have been shown to affect recycling rates, although the strength or direction of the trends may not be consistent (for instance, opposite findings regardin...…”