The Displacement Effect of Convenience: The Case of Recycling

Abstract

In light of increasingly ambitious recycling targets it is important to analyse the potential displacement effect of improving access to kerbside provision on other forms of recycling. Do households view the different modes of recycling as substitutes or complements of each other? Does this perceived relationship depend on the type of material recycled? Using data for all of the UK's local governments from 2004Q2 to 2013Q3 we analyse the nature of the relationship between the two main channels of recycling. In the case of dry recycling, the empirical findings are ambiguous on the trade-off between kerbside and non-kerbside recycling. On the one hand, the findings suggest that there is no trade-off when considering the effect of expanding kerbside provision. On the other hand, the findings also suggest that there is a trade-off when we focus on the effect of expanding non-kerbside provision. However, putting together the empirical findings with theory (in particular, the symmetry property of the Hicksian substitution effect) suggests that there is a trade-off irrespective of whether we consider expansion of kerbside or non-kerbside provision. In the case of green (compost) recycling the empirical findings on their own or together with theory unambiguously suggest that there is a trade-off.

Post-collection Separation of Plastic Waste: Better for the Environment and Lower Collection Costs?

“…3.5 kg) than only curbside collection (i.e. 5.6 kg) This is not in line with Abbott et al (2017), who show that curbside collection and non-curbside collection are substitutes in case of dry recyclables.…”

Recycling Policies, Behavior and Convenience: Survey Evidence from the CalRecycle Program

“…This and related studies focus on assessing preferences for curbside pickup services and alternatives (e.g. Beatty et al (2007) in California, Abbott et al (2017) in the UK, Best & Kneip (2018) for Germany), drop-off at government-subsidized recycling centers, and drop-off at nonsubsidized centers. In a similar vein, Jakus, Tiller, and Park (1996) surveys consumers at a disposal center to estimate average WTP for drop-off, while Tiller, Jakus, and Park (1997) uses a contingent valuation (CVM) method, which asks consumers their hypothetical willingness to pay for more drop-off centers.…”

3D-printing ‘Ocean plastic’–Fostering childrens’ engagement with sustainability

“…In recent years, recycling has been widely adopted as a method of waste disposal, especially through council waste disposal systems (Halvorsen, 2012). However, though most people assume the role of an environmentally engaged citizen by separating their waste into different bins, their sense of moral obligation is generally limited, and so if their recycling bin is full, or if packaging requires a lot of effort to clean, waste will often be disposed of in the landfill bin (Abbott, 2017). To engage people, particularly children, on a deeper level with the concepts of repurposing and remanufacturing by providing them with a more accessible and involved experience, empowers them to gain greater insight into the transformative process of turning perceived material waste into a useable raw material.…”