This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jamelske, E. Articles by Kipperberg, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

A Contingent Valuation Study and Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Switch to Automated Collection of Solid Waste With Single Stream Recycling in Madison, Wisconsin

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, jamelsem{at}uwec.edu

Gorm Kipperberg

Colorado State University

Many communities have switched to single stream recycling in the past several years. At the same time, there has also been an increase in the number of communities using an automated collection system, with these program changes often being implemented simultaneously. We conduct a double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation survey to estimate consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for the combined switch to automated collection of solid waste with single stream recycling in Madison, Wisconsin. We find a mean WTP of approximately $3 per household per month, suggesting that on average, consumers perceive the new program to be beneficial. We then perform a benefit-cost analysis where the most conservative calculation yields an annual net benefit of almost $25 per household from moving to single stream recycling with automated collection.

Key Words: solid waste management • recycling • single stream • survey • contingent valuation • willingness to pay

References

• Aadland, D. A., & Caplan, A. J. (1999). Household valuation of curbside recycling. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(6), 781-799.[CrossRef]
• Aadland, D. A., & Caplan, A. J. (2003). Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 492-502.[CrossRef]
• Aadland, D. A., & Caplan, A. J. (in press). Curbside recycling: Waste resource or waste of resources? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
• Alberini, A. (1995). Efficiency vs. bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: Bivariate and interval-data models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 169-180.[CrossRef]
• Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601-4614.
• Cameron, T. A. (1988). A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation with censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15, 355-379.[CrossRef]
• Cameron, T. A., & James, M. D. (1987). Efficient estimation for "closed-ended" contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(2), 269-276.
• Cameron, T. A., & Quiggin, J. (1994). Estimation using contingent valuation data from Dichotomous Choice With Follow-Up Questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27, 218-234.[CrossRef]
• Carson, R. T. (2000). Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science & Technology, 34(8), 1413-1418.[CrossRef]
• City officials take second look at single-stream recycling program. (2005). BioCycle, 46(1), 18-18.
• Dreckmann, G. P. (2004). Automated collection of recyclables and solid waste. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/streets/DreamTeamReport.pdf and http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/streets/Automated%2520Collection%2520Proposal.htm
• Eureka Recycling. (2002). A comparative analysis of applied recycling collection methods in Saint Paul. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://www.eurekarecycling.org/pdfs/studyreport.pdf
• Gertman, R., & Kinsella, S. (2006a). Single stream best practices manual and implementation guide. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.conservatree.com/learn/SolidWaste/singlestream.shtml
• Gertman, R., & Kinsella, S. (2006b). Single stream recycling: Best practices. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.conservatree.com/learn/SolidWaste/bestpractices.shtml
• Goodman, T. (2006). Single stream and dual stream recycling: Comparative impacts of commingled recyclables processing (Paper prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.moea.state.mn.us/publications/commingled.pdf
• Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(4), 1255-1263.[CrossRef]
• Jamelske, E. M., & Wessling, S. (2005). Assessing the support for the switch to automated collection of solid waste with single stream recycling in Madison, Wisconsin. Public Works Management and Policy, 10(2), 101-118.[CrossRef]
• Kinnaman, T. C. (2000). Explaining the growth in municipal recycling programs: The role of market and nonmarket factors. Public Works Management & Policy, 5(1), 37-51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Kinsella, S. (2006). Single stream: Closing the loop. Resource Recycling, 25(1), 12-18.
• Kipperberg, G., & Larson, D. (2006). Heterogeneous preferences for community recycling programs: A contingent rating approach. Working paper (revised version), Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis.
• Lake, I. R., Bateman, I. J., & Parfitt, J. P. (1996). Assessing a kerbside recycling scheme: A quantitative and willingness to pay case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 46, 239-254.[CrossRef]
• Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: RFF Press.
• Nyborg, K. (2000). Homo economicus and homo politicus: Interpretation and aggregation of individual values. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42, 305-322.[CrossRef]
• Paper Industry Association Council. (2006). 2005 American Forest & Paper Association community survey: Executive summary. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.paperrecycles.org/news/research_reports/exec_summ.html
• Powell, J. (2006). Single stream in perspective. Resource Recycling (special issue). Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.resource-recycling.com/single-stream.html
• Simmons, P., Goldstein, N., Kaufman, S. M., Themelis N. J., & Thompson, J., Jr. (2006). The state of garbage in America. Biocycle, 47(4), 26-43.
• Skumatz, L. A. (2004). Single stream recycling: Total cost analysis (Paper prepared for the American Forest and Paper Association). Available at http://www.serainc.com/
• Tiller, K. H., Jakus, P. M., & Park, W. M. (1997). Household willingness to pay for drop-off recycling. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 22(2), 310-320.
• Waste Management, Inc. (2006). Retrieved May 1, 2006, from http://www.wm.com/WM/ThinkGreen/recycling/singlestream.asp
• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2004). Frequently asked questions about single stream recycling in Wisconsin. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/recycle/issues/singlestream.pdf

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jamelske, E. Articles by Kipperberg, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?