Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
➤ 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 Disposal Options
Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
Waste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsthur J. Caplan, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Utah State University, 3530 Old Main Hill. Logan, UT 84322-3530Therese A. Grijalva, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, John B. Goddard School of Business and Economics, Weber State University, Ogden, UT 84408-3807Paul M. Jakus, Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Utah Slate University, 3530 Old Main Hill. Logan, UT 84322-3530Correspondence address:Arthur J. Caplan,Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
Department of Economics, Utah Slate University, 3530 OldMain Hill, Logan, UT 84322-3530 Fax: 435.797.2701Waste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking AWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsh into alternative 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 willingness-to-pay for various curbs Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionside trash-separation sendees in Ogden, Utah. Results indicate that Ogden residents are willing to pay approximately 3.7-4.6C per gallon of waste diverWaste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
ted for a curbside sendee that enables separation of green waste and recyclable material from other solid waste. Relative to costly waste diversion exWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options waste 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 for uash collection services. Economists h Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsave generally focused research efforts in two areas: (1) feasibility and effectiveness of unit pricing suategies and/or alternative waste disposal optWaste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
ions, such as recycling, in satisfying a community objective of reduc ed landfilling; and (2) measurements of household benefits of curbside recyclingWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsit-pricing 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 in diverting large amounts of waste from landfills, a broad range ol solid waste management alte Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsrnatives such as varying container size, expanding the number of materials accepted for recycling, and “other nonprice options” should be considered iWaste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
n conjunction with block-pricing. A similar Study of unit-pricing effects was conducted in Marietta, Georgia (Nestor. 1998; van Houlven and Morris, 19Waste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionstroduction of unit-based pric ing.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 recyclables for a representative sample of Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options households over a time period that allows for seasonal variation in waste disposal, can be extremely expensive and time-consuming. While many communiWaste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
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 OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionse far less expensive relative to the Portland and Marietta experiments. In particular, communities 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 shoul Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsd present respondents with alternative waste collection options that vary across price and non-price attributes.This study reports on a contingent ranWaste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
king study conducted by the city of Ogden, Utah, which at the time of the study faced tightening waste disposal constraints. Despite the presence of uWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options rail cars. City planners are therefore aggressively seeking ways to reduce the amount waste sent to the distant landfill. The Ogden City surveypresents respondents with a range of substitute trash collection options, all in the presence of the current unit-pricing program. The options are based on Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsalternatives identified by the city as both fiscally and politically feasible. In addition to evaluating potential support for a curbside recycling prWaste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
ogram (an option often studied by scientists), the city is also considering options dealing with green waste, an overlooked portion of the waste streaWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsrvey approach is a promising method for communities to evaluate the support for various municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal options.2. The Contingent Ranking MethodIn contingent ranking (CR), individuals are asked to rank a discrete set of hypothetical alternatives from most to least preferred. Eac Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsh alternative varies byprice and a variety of other choice attributes. CR has been used to value a variety of environmental goods, including the demanWaste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
d for electric cars (Beggs, et al., 1981), improvements in river water quality (Smith and Desvouges, 1986), reductions for diesel odor (Lareau and RaeWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options to use the CR method 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 Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsobtained by contingent valuation individuals may be more capable of ordering these hypothetical combinations than revealing directly their WTP for anyWaste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
specific change in these amenities.” Stevens, et al. (2000) echo this sentiment by pointing out that substitutes are made explicit in the CR method, Waste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsd that respondents do 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 Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsthe status quo, they are likely able to make careful distinctions. Respondents facing the dilemma of ranking too many options may simply determine theWaste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Options
least and most preferred, and then randomly group the others in the middle (Smith and Desvouges, 1986)? If, however, a respondent faces only three opWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408Art Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal Optionsost preferred.1 In various contexts it has been shown that respondents rank inferior alternatives with less care (Hausman and Ruud. 1987; Ben-Akiva. et al. 1992: Layton. 2000). Accordingly, the reliability of ranking information decreases with decreasing rank. Waste Not or Want Not A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsWaste Not or Want Not?A Contingent Ranking Analysis of Curbside Waste Disposal OptionsArthur J. Caplan, Therese A. Grijalva, and Paul M. Jakus37408ArtGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook