Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options

Using a contingent valuation approach for improved solid waste management facility: Evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

“…The positive relationship between these two variables is generally supported by the WTP literature. For example, income and education had a positive effect on WTP in several studies (Jin et al, 2006;Basli et al, 2006;Caplan et al, 2002). However, the number of members in the house hold was unexpectedly not found to affect WTP levels significantly in our study, although it does have a positive sign, which is similar with the results of some previous studies (Othman, 2002;Jin et al, 2006).…”

The effect of experience and quantity-based pricing on the valuation of a curbside recycling program

“…Similarly, for the non-targeted sub-sample the respective WTP amounts are $4.65 (REDUCE = 12See for instance Aadland and Caplan (1999), Caplan, et al (2002, and Lake, et al (1996). "yes") and $1.15 (REDUCE = "no"), which is also statistically significant at the 1 % level (tvalue = 5.47).…”

Municipal solid waste management, source-separated waste and stakeholder’s attitude: a Contingent Valuation Study

“…Hence, CVS method can be applied hereby projecting the possible improvement in the living condition of the respondents and asking him about the extent of contribution 12 he is willing to make to enjoy the benefits of such change. Such exercises have been reported by Jin et al (2006) in China, Fontaa et al (2007) in Nigeria and Caplan et al (2002)in Oregon US. The latter, however, used a Contingent Ranking technique to estimate the shadow value of source separation in situation where already unit price is charged on waste collection.…”