Effectiveness of deposit-refund systems for household waste in the Netherlands: Applying a partial equilibrium model

Abstract

Deposit-refund schemes (DRS) are basically a combination of two instruments: a tax on the purchase of a certain product, and a subsidy on the separate collection of the same product in its after-use stage. They can be efficient policy instruments to encourage reuse and recycling. However, empirical studies on impact of DRS systems on recycling rates are hardly done. In this paper, we applied the Fullerton-Wu model, a partial equilibrium model, to simulate the impact of introducing mandatory DRS for small electric appliances and batteries in the Netherlands. For small electric appliances, a deposit-refund rate of €5 to €15 per appliance would lead to an increase in the recycling rate (recycled appliances as a percentage of total amount of appliances disposed of) from 60.7% to 64.7% and 76.4% respectively. For batteries, a DRS would increase the recycling rate from 86.9% to between 87.2 and 89.2% depending on the deposit tax level ranging from €5 to €20 per kg and the price elasticities assumed (low and high). Obviously, the performance of DRS in terms of additional recycling is stronger in cases where current recycling rates are relatively low. Moreover, the preexistence of an infrastructure for separate collection would make small white goods an interesting candidate for this instrument.

The Baltic countries towards the goals of waste framework directive

“…The advantage of a deposit refund scheme is that it reduces the incentive for illegal dumping while it simultaneously stimulates reuse and recycling of products. In addition, it reduces the amount of waste [19]. The authors see DRS as a strong mechanism for significant decrease of environmental littering, thus bringing positive impact on landscape.…”

Rethinking and optimising post-consumer packaging waste: A sentiment analysis of consumers’ perceptions towards the introduction of a deposit refund scheme in Scotland

“…To reduce the consequences of consumerism, different initiatives have been introduced in many countries. For example, polluter-pays principle and extended producer responsibility principle which encompasses advanced recycling fee, DRS and returns subsidy, are designed ( Linderhof et al, 2019 , Pires et al, 2015 ) to internalise the negative externalities associated with overconsumption of resources.…”

“…With the global trend in plastic use, DRS may encourage consumers’ responsibility in reducing plastic waste ( Linderhof et al, 2019 ). While DRS is operationally different from countries to countries, its primary focus is to incentivise recycling of single-use containers and divert waste from landfills by ensuring that all players across the supply networks are accountable for their waste.…”

“…DRS may affect the behaviour of consumers and businesses (producers and retailers) ( Kulshreshtha and Sarangi, 2001 ) with the potential to create an informal recycling sector. Although there is a dearth of empirical research on behaviour towards DRS ( i Puigvert et al, 2020 ), there have been efforts to highlight its economic and operational advantage over other waste collection options ( Linderhof et al, 2019 , Zhou et al, 2020 ).…”

Striving Toward a Circular Economy: A Case Study of a Zero Single-Use Plastic Policy in Pearl of the Orient (Penang)

“…Linderhof et al [32] argue, however, that the introduction of mandatory EPR initiatives such as a depositrefund scheme for plastic bottles will stimulate companies' cooperation. It can be noted that there has been a shift from voluntary initiatives of producers to the introduction of mandatory programs by governments due to the apparent ability to achieve higher collection and recycling rates [33].…”