Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
Waste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsidehur J. Caplan, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Utah StateUniversity, 3530 Old Mam Hill. Logan. UT 84322-3530TheieseC. Grijalva, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, John BGoddard School of Business and Economics. Weber State University.Ogden, ƯT 84408-3807Paul M. Jakus, Associ Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsideate Professor. Department of Economics. Utah StateUniversity. 3530 Old Main Hill. Logan, UT 84322-3530Correspondence address:Arthur J. Caplan, DepartmWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
ent of Economics, Utah State University, 3530 OldMam Hill. Logan. UT 84322-3530 Fax: 435.797.27012Waste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis Waste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsidealternative waste management programs that would divert a portion of the MSW stream from landfills. Using a sample of 350 individuals from a random digit-dialed telephone survey, a discrete choice contingent ranking approach IS used to estimate household’s wilhngness-to-pay for various curbside tras Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsideh-separation sen ices in Ogden. Utah. Results indicate tliat Ogden residents are willing to pay approximately 3.7-4.60 per gallon of waste diverted foWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
r a curbside service that enables separation of green waste and recyclable material from other solid waste. Relative to costly waste diversion experimWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsidee disposal options.JEL Classifications: C35. D1231. IntroductionRecent growth in the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream nationwide has prompted considerable research into alternative waste management programs such as curbside recycling and unit-pricing lor trash collection sen ices. Economists have Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsidegenerally focused research efforts in two areas: (I) feasibility and cffecln cncss of unit pricing strategics and or alternative waste disposal optionWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
s, such as recycling, in satisfying a community objective of reduced landtilling; and (2) measurements of household benefits of curbside recycling. ChWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsidericing for waste disposal had limited effects on the amount of waste recycled and the amount of waste landfilled by Portland. Oregon residents. The authors conclude that if communities are interested III diverting large amounts of waste from landfills, a bioad range of solid waste management alterna Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsidetives such as varying container size, expanding the number of materials accepted for recycling, and "other nonprice options” should be considered in cWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
onjunction with block-pricing. A similar study of unit-pricing effects was conducted in Marietta, Georgia (Nestor. 1998: van lloulvcn and Morris. 1999Waste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsideduction of unit-based pricing.4Communities facing waste disposal constraints may wish to follow the Portland and Marietta examples by conducting large-scale waste disposal experiments. However, these experiments, which entail weighing curbside waste and 1 ecyclables for a representative sample of ho Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsideuseholds over a rime pel iod that allows for seasonal variation 111 waste disposal, can be extremely expensive and time-consuming. While many conununiWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
ties face waste disposal constraints similar to Portland and Marietta, few have the resources necessary to evaluate waste management options using thiWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsidere far less expensive relative to the Portland and Marietta experiments. In particular, conununities can use referendum-based stated preference techniques to evaluate the range of waste disposal options under consideration. In keeping with the conclusions of Hong and Adams, the referendum survey sho Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsideuld present respondents with alternative waste collection options that vary across price and non-pnce attributes.This study reports on a contingent raWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
nking study conducted by the city of Ogden. Utah, which at the time of the study faced tightening waste disposal constraints. Despite the presence of Waste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsideon rail cars. City plamiers are therefore aggressively seeking ways to reduce the amount waste sent to the distant landfill. The Ogden City siuvey5presents respondents with a range of substitute trash collection options, all in the presence of the current unit-pricing program. The options are based Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsideon alternatives identified by the city as both fiscally and politically feasible In addition to evaluating potential support for a curbside recyclingWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
program (an option often studied by scientists), the city is also considering options dealing with green waste, an overlooked portion of the waste strWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside-survey approach IS a promising method for conununities to evaluate the support for various MSW disposal options.2. The Contingent Ranking MethodIn contingent ranking (CR). individuals aie asked to rank a discrete set of hypothetical alternatives from most to least preferred. Each alternative varies Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside byprice and a variety of other choice attributes. CR has been used to value a variety of environmental goods, including the demand for electric carsWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
(Beggs, et al., 1981). improvements in liver water quality (Smith and Desvouges. 1986). reductions for diesel odor (Lareau and Rae. 1989). and enhanceWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside to estimate household valuation of curbside waste disposal.6The CR method can offer several advantages over contingent valuation For example. Smith and Desvouges (1986. p. 145) note that “although rankings of contingent market outcomes convey less information than total values obtained by contingen Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsidet valuation individuals may be more capable of ordering these hypothetical combinations than revealing directly then WTP for any specific change in thWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
ese amenities.” Stevens, et al. (2000) echo this sentiment by pointing out that substitutes are made explicit 111 the CR method, which may encourage rWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Arth Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside not use ties in rankings formats. Boyle et al. (2001) suggest two reasons for this outcome: (1) respondents are making careful distinctions: or (2) respondents feel forced to rank each alternative. As long as respondents are asked to rank only a few familiar options, including the status quo. they Waste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbsideare likely able to make careful distinctions. Respondents facing the dilemma of ranking too many options may simply determine the least and most prefeWaste Not or Want Not- A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside
rred, and then randomly group the others ill the middle (Smith and Desvouges, 1986). If however, a respondent faces only three options. It IS a relatiWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408ArthWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsAnhui J. Caplan. Therese c. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408ArthGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook