The Crowding-Out Effects of Garbage Fees and Voluntary Source Separation Programs on Waste Reduction: Evidence from China

Abstract

This paper examines how and to what degree government policies of garbage fees and voluntary source separation programs, with free indoor containers and garbage bags, can affect the effectiveness of municipal solid waste (MSW) management, in the sense of achieving a desirable reduction of per capita MSW generation. Based on city-level panel data for years 1998-2012 in China, our empirical analysis indicates that per capita MSW generated is increasing with per capita disposable income, average household size, education levels of households, and the lagged per capita MSW. While both garbage fees and source separation programs have separately led to reductions in per capita waste generation, the interaction of the two policies has resulted in an increase in per capita waste generation due to the following crowding-out effects: Firstly, the positive effect of income dominates the negative effect of the garbage fee. Secondly, there are crowding-out effects of mandatory charging system and the subsidized voluntary source separation on per capita MSW generation. Thirdly, small subsidies and tax punishments have reduced the intrinsic motivation for voluntary source separation of MSW. Thus, compatible fee charging system, higher levels of subsidies, and well-designed public information and education campaigns are required to promote household waste source separation and reduction.

Does China’s Municipal Solid Waste Source Separation Program Work? Evidence from the Spatial-Two-Stage-Least Squares Models

“…In the spatial econometric model, the cross-product terms are still included in the regression analysis, and the signs of its estimation coefficients are still consistent with the traditional estimation method obtained from Table 4. Additionally, the estimated coefficient of MSW charging variable (lnFEE) is still not significantly different from zero in each spatial matrix specification, indicating that the waste pricing mechanism does not have the effect of inhibiting the PMSWG, which is consistent with the previous study [17].…”

“…In addition, as much as 1.32 to 3.52 million tons of plastic waste enters the ocean each year from China, the highest among the 20 countries assessed and more than three times as much as second-ranked Indonesia [16]. The same as other developing countries, Chinese cities are facing tremendous pressure in terms of MSWM [17]. In view of the critical situation of MSWM and the damage to the global environment and ecosystems caused by the rapid growth of MSW, China should hold the increase of MSW in check and improve the sustainability of MSWM.…”

The Significance of Restrictions on Waste Import in Promoting Green Development in China

“…In this regard, Japan has set up a good image for environmental protection to the world, and China is following suit. Source separation is considered to be an effective way to reduce waste and enhance recycling in many developed countries [28]. The classified collection of garbage is the basis and guarantee of effective garbage management and recycling in Japan.…”

A Practical Approach to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Open Dumps through Infrastructure Restructuring: A Case Study in Nanjing City, China

“…However, the collection, disposal, and recycling of MSW cannot keep up with rapid urban development [4]. A large amount of MSW has been dumped in the areas surrounding cities, and the phenomenon of "garbage siege" is common in developing countries such as China [5][6][7]. Previous studies have demonstrated that this phenomenon stems from three main reasons.…”

“…There are currently more than 2000 active landfills in China, but the configuration facilities of most landfills are missing, and the pollution control effect is poor [16]. Most landfills are constructed based on open dumps, which is a common pattern in developing countries [5][6][7]. The congenital deficiencies of these landfills will not only lead to the decline of urban tourism and land value [17], but will also affect the urban environment.…”