Policy Watch: Examining the Justification for Residential Recycling

Kinnaman, Thomas C.

doi:10.1257/jep.20.4.219

Cited by 166 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of non-monetary incentives in waste recycling has already been emphasized in literature (Berglund, 2006;Brekke et al 2003Brekke et al , 2007Brekke et al , 2010Hage et al 2009;Halvorsen, 2008). Kinnaman (2006) indeed suggests that the benefits of recycling households are increased more by warm-glow incentives than by unit-based pricing, to the point that households may even be willing to pay for the opportunity to recycle 7 . Viscusi et al (2011) show that in the recycling of plastic water bottles, private values, such as pro-environmental behavior, prove more effective than external norms and economic incentives.…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though waste generation reduction is at the top of the 'waste hierarchy' (Pearce, 2004), a real decoupling between waste generation 1 and consumption has never taken place, despite the fact that policy efforts have intensified to tackle waste-related externalities and recycling markets have flourished giving birth to real 'industries' related to 'waste recycling chains' (Kinnaman, 2006;Mazzanti and Zoboli, 2006). Reasons for this lack of decoupling are to be found in the (excessive) policy focus on management and disposal rather than on waste reduction at the source (Mazzanti and Montini, 2009;D'Amato et al 2013;Viscusi et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations

Cecere

Mancinelli

Mazzanti

2014

Ecological Economics

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though reduction is at the top of the waste management hierarchy, EU policies have historically introduced waste management incentives mainly concerning waste recovery and recycling, in addition to actions aimed at reducing disposal in landfills. Only very recently have EU policies started defining targets for waste reduction. Against this backdrop, we aim to examine whether individual behavior towards waste reduction is more strongly driven by extrinsic motivations such as social norms, or intrinsic motivations such as purely altruistic preferences. We exploit a large new survey that covers thousands of individuals for the EU27, to test the role of motivations when people are faced with collective management of the public good. We find that diverse motivations are behind the reduction of food waste: extrinsic motivations nevertheless increase the likelihood of producing more waste. Green consumption / recycling-oriented attitudes and individualistic thinking about waste management relate to 'waste producers'. This shows that in order to go beyond a recycling-oriented society towards reduction of the source of waste externality -its generation -the nature of social preferences matters. Behavior patterns leading to waste reduction are less socially oriented, less exposed to peer pressure and more reliant upon purely 'altruistic' social attitudes. Policy makers should learn from the relevant insights on social behavior we here address if our societies aim to fully integrate the idea of waste reduction alongside recycling in the future.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations

Cecere

Mancinelli

Mazzanti

2014

Ecological Economics

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kinnaman (2006) presents results of earlier studies. Our estimates, 1.66 for unsorted waste and 2.92 for biodegradable waste, are closest to the 1.92 estimated by Fullerton and Kinnaman (1996).…”

Section: Effects Of Different Ubp Programsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Moreover, UBP may encourage illegal dumping, and price differences among jurisdictions may result in garbage tourism. Kinnaman (2006) and Kinnaman (2008) argue that the benefits from UBP are negligible, and that, in the United States at least, costs actually exceed benefits. As many jurisdictions around the world have adopted UBP, and others are contemplating its introduction, this is not merely an academic issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Unit-Based Garbage Pricing: A Differences-in-Differences Approach

Allers

Hoeben

2009

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a unique 10-year dataset of all 458 Dutch municipalities, we apply a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the effect of unit-based pricing on household waste quantities and recycling. Community-level studies of unit-based pricing typically do not include fixed effects at the local level. We find that failure to do so may substantially inflate the estimated price effect. We also find that unit-based pricing may be endogenous, and use instrumental variables to account for this. Our analysis shows that user fees depend on user fees in neighboring jurisdictions (policy interaction). Our estimate of the garbage reduction per $1 user fee is lower than any previous estimate bar one. The price effect depends on the pricing system: weight-based systems reduce garbage quantities more than volume-based systems. User fees increase recycling, especially of paper, but not nearly as much as they reduce garbage quantities. We find no evidence for waste tourism or illegal dumping.

show abstract

“…It is hence an empirical question whether PGB can be effective both when measuring garbage in litres, and in kilograms. According to the review of Kinnaman (2006), PGB and weight programs may perform in a very similar way, in common units. Overall, the estimates for price elasticities that he reports range approximately from −0.08 to −0.39, pointing to incinerated garbage as a relatively, but not completely, inelastic good.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is taxing waste a waste of time? Evidence from a supreme court decision

Carattini

Baranzini

Lalive

Climate Change and Law Collection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TEnvironmental taxes are often underexploited. This paper analyses the effectiveness of a garbage tax, assessing its effects on multiple outcomes as well as its acceptability. We study how a Supreme Court decision, mandating the Swiss Canton of Vaud to implement a tax on garbage, affects garbage production and beliefs about the tax. We adopt a difference-in-differences approach exploiting that parts of Vaud already implemented a garbage tax before the mandate. Pricing garbage by the bag (PGB) is highly effective, reducing unsorted garbage by 40%, increasing recycling of aluminium and organic waste, without causing negative spillovers on adjacent regions. The effects of PGB seem very persistent over time. Our assessment of PGB looks very favourable. It may surprise that PGB is not implemented more often. Hence, we look at people's perceptions. We find that people are very concerned with PGB ex ante. Public opposition seems to be the main obstacle to PGB. However, implementing PGB reduces concerns with effectiveness and fairness substantially. After implementing PGB, people accept 70% higher garbage taxes compared to before PGB. We argue that environmental taxes could be much more diffused, if people had the chance to experience their functioning and correct their beliefs.

show abstract

Policy Watch: Examining the Justification for Residential Recycling

Cited by 166 publications

References 2 publications

Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations

Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations

Effects of Unit-Based Garbage Pricing: A Differences-in-Differences Approach

Is taxing waste a waste of time? Evidence from a supreme court decision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About