rural household recycling

7/27/2019 Rural Household Recycling

1/8

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 29,1 (July 1997): 141148O 1997 Southern Agricul tural Economics Associa t ion

Explaining Rural Household Participationin RecyclingPaul M. Jakus, Kelly H. Tiller, and William M. Park

ABSTRACT

Ris ing land fi ll cos t s have f or ced soli d was t e manager s to cons ider was t e s t r eam reduct iona l terna t ivessuch as household recycl ing . Expla in ing the f actor s which mot iva te householdst o recycle is im port an t t o regions w here households must bea r a la rge por t ion of t her ecy clin g cos t b ecau se unit -b a sed g a rba g e d is pos a l fees and cu rb sid e r ecy clin g a r e notfeas ible opt ions . Empir ica l resu lt s indica te tha t res iden ts a re respons ive to cons t r a in ts in-t roduced by the household product ion technology , such a s t ime cost s a nd st ora ge spa ce,but a re n ot r es pon sive t o va ria bles m ea sur in g a r ecy clin g pr omot ion al pr ogr am . P r omot ioneffor t s should sw it ch focus from broa der public good benefit s of recycling t o reducinghousehold-level household product ion cons t ra in ts .Key Words: d ropof f r ecy cl in g, h ou sehold r ecy cli ng pa r t icipa t ion , r ur a l r eg ion s.

Rura l coun ties a n d sm a ll commun it ies w it h lowpopula tion densit ies throughout the U nit edS ta t es fa ce new const ra int s a nd pressures w it hrega rd t o solid w a st e ma na gement . I n a ddit iont o difficult ies in sit ing new la ndfills, st rict erla ndfill regula t ions issued in 1991 under S ub-t it le D of the Resource Conserva tion a nd Re-covery Act a re ra ising the cost of t ra dit iona lsolid w ast e disposa l methods (Da rcy; Ma liaa nd Morr issey). These cha nges ha ve ma de itimper a t ive t h a t communit ies ca r efu lly a lloca t eexist ing a nd fut ure la ndfill spa ce. I n responset o t he regula tions, by 1994, 42 st a t es ha d ma n-da ted reduct ions in t he a mount of solid w ast ereq uir ing disposa l; 28 of t hese a lso req uire t hepr ovision of r ecy clin g pr og ram s (S t eu teville).

The au thor s a r e a ss is t an t p rofessor , g radua t e r esea r cha ss is t an t, and professor , r espect i vely, a l l in t he Depa r t -men t of Ag ricu lt ur a l E conomics a nd Rur a l Soci ol og y,The Univers it y of Tennessee .S uppor t for t his r es ea r ch w a s pr ov id ed by t h e Un i-ver s it y of Tennessee Agri cu lt u ra l Exper imen t S t a t i ona nd t he Wa st e Ma na gemen t R es ea rch a nd E duca t ionInst i tute .

I n m ost ca ses, rura l communit ies a re subject t ot he same federa l regula t ions a nd st a te w a st e re-duct ion ma nda tes a s urba n communit ies. B utgiven t he significa nt economies of sca le in t heopera tion of a recycling progra m, a la rge vol-ume of m at eria ls must be recovered for t he pro-gra m to be cost effect ive. S uch economies a redifficult t o a chieve in rura l a rea s unless recy-clin g pa r ticipa t ion r a t es a r e h igh .

Alt hough in forma t ion rega rdin g pa r ticipa -t ion ra t es is im port a nt in det ermining w het hera recycling progra m ca n be economica lly ef-ficient , t here ha s been lit tle resea rch invest i-ga ting the economic fa ctors w hich influenceh ouseh old r ecy clin g pa rt icipa t ion . Th e lit er a-t ure by noneconomist s is more ext ensive, butt hese st udies ha ve focused on psychologica lor sociologica l fa ctors (Vining a nd Ebreo;B a rker et a l.; Oska mp et a l.; Vining, Linn, a ndB urdge).l E conomist s ha ve genera lly exa m-

1Anot h er s egmen t of t h e li ter a t ur e exam ines in -t er ven t ion mech anisms , such a s public commitmen tor monet a r y r ew a r d s, t o i ncr ea s e r ecy cli ng pa r t icipa -


2/8

142 Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, July 1997

ined the effect of unit -ba sed pricing for ga r-ba ge disposa l on the quant it y of ma ter ia l re-cycled or the frequency of recycling in urba n,cur bside pr ogr ams [F ullert on a nd K innama n;H ong, Ada ms, a nd Love; Morris a nd H oltha u-sen (MH)]; how ever, curbside recycling a ndunit -ba sed pricing oft en a re not fea sible op-t ions for rura l communit ies. J a kus, Tiller , a ndP ark (J TP ) studied a dropoff system in a rura la rea , but t hey focused on genera t ion of re-cycla ble (pounds of ma ter ia l genera ted) ra th-er t ha n on t he fa ct or s in fluen cin g pa r ticipa t ion .

This st udy examines household decisionst o pa rt icipa t e in a volunt a ry recycling pr ogr amin a rura l a rea of Willia mson County, Tennes-see. Not only a re curbside recycling a nd unit -ba sed pr icing impr act ica l policy opt ions in t hisregion, but the rura l a rea is served by dropoffsit es for ga rba ge beca use even curbside ga r-ba ge pickup is infea sible. G iven tha t this re-gion const itutes 46% of the countys house-holds, the county must encoura ge w a stereduct ion a nd recycling by rura l households ifst a te-m anda t ed w a st e r educt ion goa ls a re t o bemet . The count y ha s a ggr essively pr omot ed r e-cycling in rura l a rea s. We eva lua te t he effec-t iven ess of t his effor t.

The empir ica l model dra ws upon exist ingtheoret ica l models (especia lly those of MHa nd J TP ) t o ident ify t he fa ct ors influencing t hepa rt icipa t ion decision. I n a ddit ion, our modelincor por at es va ria bles m ea sur ing t he effect ofa count y government s effort s t o encoura ge r e-cycling. Result s indica te t ha t while rura lhouseholds a re responsive t o const ra in t s a s-socia ted w it h t he household product ion t ech-nology a nd t o ot her demogra phic effect s, t heya re not responsive to va ria bles mea suring t heimpa ct of the loca l recycling progra m. Our re-sult s a re a pplica ble t o ot her regions w it h la rgerura l popula t ions.Data Collection

The Tennessee S olid Wa st e Ma na gement Actof 1991 ma nda tes a 25% reduct ion in the per

t ion (P or t er , L eem in g, a n d Dwy er ). We do n ot a d dr es st h is l it er a t u r ebecause int er ven t ions a r e not emp loyedin t he st udy a rea .

ca pit a w eight of solid w aste burned or buriedover a six-yea r period, a nd ma ny count ies a rerelying on household recycling t o help a chievet his goa l. Loca t ed just sout h of Na shville, Wil-lia mson C ount y ha s a w ell-developed dropoffrecycling progra m. Approxima tely ha lf t hehouseholds in t he count y a re rura l, w here ru-ra l households a re defined a s t hose not con-t ra ct ing for curbside ga rba ge collect ion. Thecount y ha s est ablished a net work of seven con-ven ien ce (dr opoff) cen ter s in r ur a l a r ea s, wh er er es id en ts w it hout h ous e-t o-h ou se ga r ba ge col-lect ion ca n drop off their ga rba ge a nd recycl-able.

Willia mson Count y employs a full-t imeprogra m coordina tor w ho dissemina tes pro-mot iona l informa tion to the public a nd over-sees a recycling educa t ion pr ogram in elem en-t a ry a nd middle schools. The promot iona llit era ture a dvoca t es recycling a s good fort he environment (e.g., recycling X t ons of pa -per sa ves Y t rees), a nd a s a n effect ive w a yto reduce solid w a st e a nd ext end the life ofla n dfills. Th e in forma t ion does n ot descr ibe ef-ficient product ion a nd st ora ge met hods for re-cycling. As a pa rt icipa t ion incent ive, r evenuefr om t he sa le of t he recycled m at eria l is don at edt o schools, libra ries, a nd civic groups loca tedin t he vicinit y of t he convenience cent er .

The survey inst rument w a s designed usinga focus group a nd two pretest s conduct ed a tconvenience cen ters in K nox C ount y, Tennes-see. During August a nd November 1992, 284individua ls w ere interview ed a s they ent eredconvenience cent ers.z U pon complet ion of onein ter view , enumer a t or s a t t empt ed t o in ter viewt he next per son ent er ing t he convenience cen-t er . Th e r espon se r a te w a s 70. 1% Respon den tsw ere present ed w ith a number of st a tement sr ega rding issues a ssocia t ed w it h household r e-cycling a nd rura l solid w a st e ma na gement , a ndwere a sked to st a t e the degree to which theya gr eed or disa gr eed w it h t hese st a tement s. Thest a tem ent s a nd mea n r esponses a re r epor ted int a ble 1, a long w ith da t a est a blishing a st a tis-t ica l pr ofile of r esponden t s.

Over a ll, 759Z0of r esponden t s s t a ted t hey r e-2Responden t s we re i nt er viewed a t t h reeo f t h e sev -

en ru ra l conven ience cen t er s .


3/8

Jakus, Tiller, and Park: Explaining Recycling Participation 143

Table 1. Va r ia ble Mean sVariable Mea n or V. S td. Dev. nINCOME (?ZOof sample)$65,000

EDUCATION (years)AGE (years)HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (no.)HOMEOWNER (%)FRIENDS: I ha ve fr iends w ho recycle. (Yoyes)DONATE: B efor e t his in terview , I kn ew t ha t recyclin g r evenue

w ent t o loca l groups. (% yes)CHILDREN 6-14: My hou seh old h a s ch ild ren a g ed 6-14. (Yoyes)Other Variables (measured on 4-point scale*):TIME: I t t a kes lit tle t im e t o r ecy cle.STORAGE: My hou se h a s a d eq ua t e s tor a ge s pa ce for r ecy cla b le.GENERATE: My household genera tes en ough m at eria l t o m ake

recycl ing wor thwh ile,INFORMATION: I nforma t ion on r ecy clin g is r ea dily a va ila ble.

27515.27 0.3637.09 0.4834.18 0.4813.46 0.3412.45 3.35 28444.38 14.89 2833.08 1.39 284

85.56 0.35 28374.32 0.44 25731.34 0.46 28429.22 0.46 2842.02 0.53 2742.49 0.74 2842.14 0.69 2812.13 0.54 265

* Fou r-poin t sca le is d efin ed a s follow s : 1 = s tr on gly a g r ee, 2 = a g ree, 3 = d is a gr ee, a n d 4 = s tr on gly d is a gr ee,

cycled a t lea st one ma teria l, but only 31YOa c-tua lly brought a ny recycla ble on the da y ofthe interview . The dispa rit y betw een theseper cent a ges is st riking, but could exist for log-ica l r ea s on s. F ir st , t he a ver a ge a ccumula t ioninterva l (t he number of da ys bet ween deliv-ery t o t he conven ience cen ter ) for recycla bleis longer (16 da ys) t ha n t ha t for ga rba ge (eightda ys). This ma y be beca use recycla blekeep bet ter tha n ga rba ge, or tha t stora ge ca -pa cit y a nd household size combine to deter-mine frequency of recycla ble dropoff. Thus,if ga rba ge is delivered more frequent ly tha nrecycla ble, a n int ercept survey is more likelyt o interview someone on a ga rba ge-onlyda y ra ther t ha n on a da y when recycla blew ere a lso delivered. S econd, households w it hrela tively high recycling cost s w ould a ccu-mula te recycla ble a t a slower ra t e tha n thosew ith low er cost s. Fina lly, 1490 of recyclerssa id they recycled a t the w orkpla ce or deliv-ered recycla ble to other sit es, such a s a com-mercia l buyba ck cent er . An a lt erna t ive hy-pothesis is tha t these individua ls ma y ha vebeen t rying to provide a n environmenta llycor rect r esponse. This issue is eva lua t ed w it ha likelihood ra t io t est in t he next sect ion.

Empirical ModelsThis sect ion report s probit models used t ogauge the fa ctors determining whether ahousehold recycles. E conomet ric specifica -t ions a re chosen using t he t heoret ica l modelsof MH a nd J TP . B oth theoret ica l models relyon a household product ion a pproa ch a nd ha ves im ila r Kuhn-Tucker fir st -or der condit ion s. I ngen er a l, t hes e con dit ion s s how t ha t h ouseh oldpa rt icipa tion is driven by a compa rison of t hema rgina l benefit s of recycling a nd t he m ar gin-a l cost s of recycling [equa tions (20c) in MHa nd (4c) in J TP ]. For the MH model, the ben-efit of recycling includes a voided disposa lcost s (from volume-ba sed pricing of ga rba gedisposa l) a nd the monet ized posit ive impa cton ut ilit y from t he genera tion of recycla ble.The J TP model is somew ha t different in tha tbenefit s a re derived not from genera ting re-cycla ble, but from the monet ized impa ct onut ilit y of a voiding a la rger volume of w ast e t obe disposed.3 The J TP model rest rict s cost s of

3Thus, t he JTP mod el d oes n ot imply t ha t peoplepur ch ase pr odu ct s for t he a dd ed goa l of gen er at in ga la rger volume of recycla ble, a s is implied by theMH model .


4/8


recycling t o t he t ime a ssocia ted w it h recycla -ble prepa ra t ion, w hile t he MH model in cludesa d dit ion a l ou t-of-pocket expen dit ur es for st or -a ge a nd deliver y of recycla ble. In both mod-els, t he pa ra met ers of t he household produc-t ion technology a ffect the first -ordercondit ions, a nd t hus t he decision t o recycle.

B eca use unit -ba sed ga rba ge disposa l pric-ing is not fea sible in many rura l regions, t hebenefit s of recycling consist solely of t hew a rm glow benefit s of recycla ble gener-a ted (MH ) or ga rba ge disposa l a voided (J TP ).I t is precisely t hese benefit t erms t ha t t he Wil-liamson County recycling program ha s a t -t empt ed t o in fluen ce, t o t he exclusion of t ry ingt o help households low er the cost s of recy-cling. Our empir ica l specifica t ion s in clude n otonly va ria bles which mea sure the impa ct oft he Willia mson C ount y recycling promot iona nd educa t ion program, but a lso va r ia bleswhich ca pture the cost side of the equa tion:t he h ouseh old pr oduct ion t echn ology a n d t im ecost s. The models w ill ident ify w hich fa ct orsexert a more import ant influence on t he deci-sion t o r ecy cle.Full Sample Results

The full sa mple pa rt icipa tion models a re pre-sent ed in t a ble 2. In genera l, t he models a recon sist en t w it h t heoret ica l expect a tion s, w it hnea rly a ll va ria bles ha ving the expected signa nd most highly significa nt . S pecifica tion #1in clud es a ll va ria bles believed t o in fluence t hed ecision t o r ecy cle. STORAGE , GENERATE ,a nd TIME w ere coded such t ha t t he expect edsign on t hese va ria bles w a s nega tive.

The most import a nt fa ct ors a ffect ing t hedecision t o recycle a re t hose w hich const ra int he ma rgina l benefit s of recycling or ra ise t hema rgin a l cost of r ecy clin g. H ou seh old s believ-ing t ha t t hey genera te enough ma teria l t o w ar-ra nt recycling a re more likely to recycle(GENERATE). This va ria ble ca n be int erpret -ed in two w a ys. First , it serves a s a mea sureof ret urns t o sca le in recycla ble product ion,a nd t hus represent s a product ion t echnologyva ria ble. Alt erna t ively , it could represent t her es pon den t s per cept ion of t h e effect iven ess ofperson a l recy cling effor ts in dea lin g w it h solid

was te . STORAGE ca pt ures a n oft -cit ed pro-d uct ion con st ra in t in r ecy clin g by h ou seh old s.H ouseholds w ith a dequa te stora ge spa ce a rea lso more likely to recycle tha n t hose w ith in-a dequ a t e s tor a ge.

P re-survey a ct ivit ies revea led t ha t n onre-cyclers could not a nsw er q uest ions a bout howmuch t ime w a s req uired t o recycle, sa y, a gla ssbot t leso we opted t o a sk a quest ion nonre-cy cler s could a n sw er . Th e va ria ble TIME rep-resent s a rough mea sure of household percep-t ions of t he a mount of t ime needed t o recycle.Household perception of the t ime cost is thea ppropr ia te mea sure in a model such a s oursbeca use it represent s a ma jor ba rrier t o recy-cling. All else being equa l, it is hypot hesizedtha t those w ith grea ter perceived t ime cost sw ill be less likely to recycle. The empirica lm odels support t his h ypot hesis , w here house-holds believing t ha t recycling t a kes lit tle t imea re more likely t o recycle t ha n t hose disa gree-ing w it h t his st a t ement (TIME).

Hou seh old ch a ra ct er ist ics in flu en ce beh a v-ior a s well. H ouseholds a re more likely to re-cycle if t hey ha ve fr iends who recycle(FRIENDS) or a s t he r espon den ts a ge in cr ea s-es (AG,E).4 Respondent s w ho a re college gra d-ua tes (COLLEGE GRAD UATE) are more like-ly t o recycle t ha n t hose w ho a re not . H ouseholdincome da ta were collect ed a s a ca tegor ica lva ria ble; in t he empir ica l models, t hose w ithhousehold incomes of less t ha n $15,000 rep-resent t he ba se ca se. Only respon den ts w it h in-comes in t he $35,000$65,000 ca tegory a remore likely to recycle tha n ba se ca se respon-dent s. This provides some support for t he hy-pot hesis t ha t income ma y ha ve offset ting pro-duct ion a nd income effect s in recyclingbeh avior (S a lt zm a n, D ugga l, a n d Williams). Asincom e increa ses, h ouseholds purcha se morema rket ed commodit ies, so t hey ha ve m ore ma -teria l a va ila ble to recycle. At the sa me t ime,h ow ever , t he oppor tu nit y cost of t ime in cr ea s es,t hereby in crea sin g t he n et cost of recy cling.

S pecifica t ion #1 a lso in cludes va ria bles de-

4Th e respondent ma y m erely be ha uling t he re-cycla ble, a nd ma y not be t he household m em ber re-spon sib le f or r ecy clin g decis ion s. I n t h is ca s e, t h e r es -ponden t s cha r a ct er is t ics a c t a s proxy va r iab les .


5/8


Table 2. Recycling P a rt icipa tion Models: Full S ample (N = 222)Econometric Specif ication

Va ria ble #1 #2InterceptHousehold Production Technology andCharacteristics Variables:STORAGEGENERATETIME

FRIENDSAGECOLLEGE GRADUATEINCOME $15,000$35,000INCOME $35,000$65,000

INCOME >$65,000HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (no.)HOMEOWNER

County Recycling Program Variables:CHILDREN 6-14DONATEINFORMATION

X2% Correct

1.21(1.21)

0.49**(-2.93)0.43**-(2.93)0.33(-1,52)

1.00**(3.78)0.02**(2.28)1.02**(2.29)0.23(0.67)0.71*(1.81)0.35(-0.71)0.07(0.65)

0.10(-0.29)

0.37(-1.26)0.16(0.62)0.16(0.79)77.50**82.4

1.48(1.61)

0.49**(-3.04)0.38**(-2.25)0.37*(-1.69)

1.00**(3.89)0.02**(2.70)0.99**(2.30)0.28(0.83)0.75*(1.94)0.20(-0.43)0.01(0.15)0.11(-0.34)

74.86**83.3

Notes: Dependent var iable: 1 = recycle, O = dont recycle. Numbers in parentheses are ratios of a coefficient to itsasymptotic standard error. Single and double asterisks (*) denote significance at a = 0.10 and a = 0.05, respectively.

sign ed t o ca pt ure t he impa ct of t he William sonCounty informa tion a nd educa tion progra m.This progra m is explicit ly designed to influ-ence resident s sensit ivit y t o solid w ast e is-s ues. Th e va r ia ble CH ILDREN 61 4 a t temptst o ca pt ure t he influence of t he element ary a ndm iddle-sch ool educa t ion pr ogr am, w hile DO-NATE mea sures whether the respondent is

a wa re t ha t revenue w ent t o communit y orga n-izations. INFORMATION mea s ur es t h e a bilit yof the program to rea ch the genera l publica bout recycling a nd solid w ast e issues. Indi-vidua lly , none of t he progra m-specific va ri-a bles a re st a tist ica lly sign ifica n t. Th e h ypot h-esis tha t t he slopes of the progra m va ria blesa re joint ly equa l t o zero is not reject ed (i.e.,


6/8


fr om t a ble 2, nega t ive t w o t imes t he differ en cein t he log-likelihood va lues bet ween specifi-ca t ion #1 a nd specifica t ion #2 is 2.64).

B efore concluding t ha t the educa tion pro-gram is ineffect ive, how ever , t wo ca vea ts mustbe st a t ed. F irst , t he va ria bles used t o ga uge t heprogram a re crude mea sures. In pa rt icula r ,CH ILDREN 6-1 4 ma y ca pt ure not only t he im-pa ct of t he school progra m, but a lso other fa c-t ors a ssocia ted w it h ha ving school-a ged chil-dren in t he household. A bet ter mea sur e w oulddiffer en tia t e bet w een h ous eh old s w it h sch ool-a ged children w hose children ha d or ha d notpa rt icipa ted in the recycling educa tion pro-gra m. Second, the effect iveness of t he recy-cling educa t ion pr ogr am ma y best be eva lua t edby observing how t he ma rgina l effect s cha ngeover t ime. For exa mple, w hile ha ving school-a ged children in the household may limit re-cycling pa rt icipa t ion (i.e., give a nega t ive signin a probit pa rt icipa tion model), a school re-cycling program may make this effect lessnega t ive. D roppi ng Pot en ti al ly ccComp lia n tObservationsWhile economic rea soning a nd the sa mplingmethodology ma y expla in w hy some respon-dent s cla imed to recycle but did not ha ve anyrecycla ble in ha nd, other pa rt icipa nt s ma yh ave pr ovid ed r es pon ses wh ich t hey per ceivedto be socia lly responsible, or they ma y ha vebeen t rying to comply w ith w ha t they thoughtthe interview er w anted to hea r. For exa mple,a recent study of college student s (B arker eta l.) revea led lit t le congruit y betw een the stu-dent s st at ed recycling beha vior a nd their a c-tua l recycling beha vior . I t is possible tha t thesa me beha vior occurred in our sa mple. Suchyea -sa ying ha s long been recognized in thecon tin gen t va lua t ion lit er a tur e (e.g., Mit ch ella nd Ca rson, pp. 2404 1). Rela t ive to a con-t ingent va lua tion st udy, how ever , w e ha ve thea dva nt a ge of know ing exa ct ly w hich respon-dent s present pot ent ia l problems. We t est forthe effect of the complia nt popula t ion byelimina t ing them from the ana lysis. The re-ma ining sa mple consist s solely of t hose w hoa re know n (w ith cert a inty) to be recyclers a nd

t hose w ho st at ed t ha t t hey did not recycle. Theest im a ted coefficien ts fr om t he r est rict ed s am-ple ca n be compa red w ith the unrest r ictedsa mple coefficient s using a likelihood ra tiot est . Th e pa r ticipa t ion models for t he r es tr ict edsa mple a re reported in t a ble 3.

For the rest r icted sa mple, t he va lue of t helikelihood funct ion for ea ch specifica t ion w a sca lcula ted a t t he coefficient s est ima ted for t hefull sa mple. A test st a tist ic w as formed usingthe set of coefficient s which maximized theva lue of t he likelihood funct ion for t he rest rict -ed sa mple. For specifica tion #1, the null hy-pot hesis of pa ramet er eq ua lit y is r eject ed a t t hea = 0.10 level, w hile t he null for specifica tion#2 is rejected a t the a = 0.05 level. This sug-gest s t ha t som e degr ee of complia nce is pr esen tin t he da t a . D es pit e pot en tia l complia n ce pr ob-lem s, h owever , t he r es tr ict ed s ample mod els a r equa lit at ively ident ica l t o t he full sa mple mod-els . E ver y s ta t is tica lly s ignifica n t va r ia ble in t h efull sa mple models (t a ble 2) ret a ins the sa mesign a nd a t lea st the same level of st a t ist ica ls ignifica n ce in t he r es tr ict ed s ample models (t a -ble 3), Thus, conclusions ba sed on t he modelsa r e in sen sit ive t o pot en tia l complia n ce effect s.5DiscussionIn ma ny w ays, our findings corrobora te t hoseof t he noneconomic lit era ture. S imila r t o Vin-ing a nd Ebreo, we found tha t older respon-dent s a re more likely to recycle tha n youngerrespondent s. Second, recyclers ha d, on a ver-a ge, gr ea t er incomes t ha n nonrecyclers (a find-ing support ed by Vining a nd Ebreo, a nd byOska mp et a l.). Third, a s in our study, previ-ous studies ha ve a lso not ed the import ance ofthe recycling beha vior of friends a nd neigh-bor s in det ermin in g beh a vior .

C onversely, our result s a lso differ in ma nyr es pect s. Th e empir ica l models sug gest t ha t r e-cycling beha vior ma y be q ua dra t ic in income,ra ther t ha n linea r a s implied by previous st ud-

5Compl ianceprob lems appear to b ia s the param-et er es tima t esin t h is ca s e. Wh ile t h is is n ot a ma jorprob lem in our appl ica t ion(i .e. , we can s t il l conductinforma tivepolicy ana lysis), welfare measures(will-ingness to pay or wi ll ingness to accept ) derived froma CVM applica t ion w ou ld be in cor rect .


7/8


Table 3. Recycling P a r t icipa tion Models: Drop Compla int Observa tions (N = 127)Econometric Specificat ion

Va ria ble #1 #2Intercept

Household Production Technology andCharacteristics Variables:STORAGEGENERATETIMEFRIENDSAGECOLLEGE GRADUATEINCOME $15,000$35,000INCOME $35,000$65,000INCOME >$65,000HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (no.)HOMEOWNER

County Recycling Program Variables:CHILDREN 6-14DONATE

INFORMATIONx70 Correct

0.71(1.42)

0.68**(-2.88)0.77**(2.96)0.57*(1.83)1.03**(2.80)0.03**(2.28)1.20**(2.24)0.38(0.76)1.06*(1.84)

0.08(-0.12)0,14(0.92)0.08(0.15)

0.42(-0.98)0.30(0.85)0.55(1.56)79.96**82.7

1.44(1.12)

0.59**(-2.74)0.68**(-2.74)0.63**(-2,08)0.98**(2.79)0.03**(2,91)1.15**(2.23)0.46(0,93)1.21**(2.15)0.26(0.42)0.05(0.40)0,02(0.04)

75.67**81.1

Notes: Dependent variable: 1 = recycle, O = dont recycle. Numbers in parentheses are ratios of a coefficient to itsasymptotic standard error. Single and double asterisks (*) denote significance at w = 0.10 and a = 0.05, respectively.

ies by non econ om ist s. Th e policy implica t ionof home ow nership is a lso different ; e.g., Os-kamp et a l. suggest t ha t beca use homeow nersa re mor e likely t o recy cle, pr omot ion al effort sshould be a imed a t t hose w ho rent , especia llyt hose w ho do not live in single-fa mily homes.In cont ra st , our da ta indica te tha t recyclingpa rt icipa t ion is n ot rela t ed t o h ome ow ner sh ip

per se, but t o the product ion const ra int s tha tma y ha ve been proxied by home ownership.The models presen ted h er e explicit ly in cludeth is const r a in t (STORAGE), so it is not sur-prising t ha t home ow nership is insignifica nt .F ina lly , Vining a nd Ebreo focus on the moti-vat ions of recyclers t o suggest t ha t recyclinginforma tion should empha size the role


8/8


pla yed by recycling in prot ect ing t he environ-ment (p. 71). Our st udy indica tes t ha t house-hold product ion const ra int s ma y be more im-port a nt fa ct ors in determining householdr ecycling behav ior .GConclusions: Making the ResultsUseful to PolicymakersThe empir ica l mod els d escr ibin g pa r t icipa t ionin recycling a re consist ent w ith t heoret ica lmodels developed elsewhere, a nd provide an umber of in sigh ts int o t he design of recy clin gcampa igns. A recycling program coordina t orma y ha ve the grea t est impa ct in modifyingresident s percept ions of const ra in ts t o recy-cling. While nea rly a ll of t he recycling infor-ma t ion in Williamson County promot es t hepublic good a spect s of recycling, none t a rgett he h ouseh old pr odu ct ion con st ra in ts t o w hichr esponden t s wer e s en sit iv e (STORAGE, GEN-ERATE, a nd TZME). I nform a tion focusin g onw a ys t o m a ke t he con st ra in ts less bin ding couldin cr ea s e pa r ticipa t ion r a t es. I nforma t ion a l br o-chures might w ell highlight (a) space-saving,convenient met hods of recycla ble stora ge inbot h h omes a n d r en ta l a pa r tm en ts; (b) efficien tm et hods of r ecy cla ble prepa ra t ion , t hus reduc-ing peoples percept ion of the a mount of t imereq uired t o recycle; a nd (c) t he amount of w a st ea nd pot ent ia lly recycla ble ma t eria l genera t edby households of different sizes t o empha sizet he cont ribut ion t ha t ea ch household ca n m aket ow a rd reducin g solid w a st e.

At first gla nce, t he pa rt icipa tion modelsmight lea d one t o conclude t ha t promot iona leffor t s a re not effect ive in inducing house-holds t o recycle. The a va ila bilit y of informa -t ion a bout recycling a nd ma king householdsa wa re t ha t revenues from t he sa le of recycla -ble ma teria l a re dona ted to loca l communit ygroups do not influence pa rt icipa t ion. E duca -t ion a l progr am s a im ed a t sch ool-a ged ch ildr ena lso do not a ppea r t o ha ve impa ct ed householdpa rt icipa t ion ra tes. Our models, how ever, donot provide a clea r a ssessment of the impa ctof t hese promot ion a l effor ts . A mor e pow er ful

GMos t of t h e s t ud ies ci ted , h owever , d o empha siz ethe need to make recycl ing a s conven ien t a s possible.

t est of t heir effect iveness w ould employ va ri-a bles specifica lly designed t o ca pt ure t he ma r-gina l effect s of promot ion effort s.ReferencesB a rker , K ., L. Fong, S . G rossma n, C . Quinn, a nd R.

R eid. C ompa rison of S elf-R epor ted R ecy clin gAt t it ud es a n d B eh a vior s w it h Act ua l B eh a vior .Psychological Reports 75(1994):57177.

Darcy, S. La n dfill C ris is P r ompt s Act ion . A4an-age. of World Wastes 32(1991):2855.

Fullert on , D ., a nd T.C . K in na rna n. H ouseh old R e-sponses t o P ricing G a rba ge by t he B a g. Amer.Econ. Rev. 86(1996):97184.

Hong, S ., R.M. Adams, a nd H .A. Love. An Eco-n om ic An alysis of H ouseh old R ecy clin g of S olidWas t es . J. Environ. Econ. and Manage.25(1993):13646.

J a kus, F !M., K .H . Tiller , a nd W.M. P a rk. G enera -t ion of Recycla ble by Rura t Households. J.Agr. and Resour. Econ. 21(1996):96-108.

Ma lia , J .E ., a nd J . Morr issey . Rura t C ommunit iesa nd S ubt it le D : P roblems a nd S olut ions. J ointTVA/EPA project . Tennes see Va l ley Au t hor it y /Cen t er f or Wa s t e Mana g emen t , a n d Envir onmen -ta l P rot ect ion Agency , Region IV, At la nt a G A,December 1994.

Mit chell, R, C ., a nd R.T. C arson. Using Surveys toValue Public Goods: The Contingent ValuationMethod. Wa shingt on D C: R esources for t he F u-ture, 1989.

Morris, G . E ., a nd D .M. H olt ha usen. The E conom-ics of H ousehold Solid Wa ste G enera tion a ndD ispos a l. J. Environ. Econ. and Manage.26( 1994):21534.

Oskarnp, S . , M.J . B a rr ingt on, T.C . E dwmrls, D .L.Sherw ood, S .M. Okuda , a nd D .C . Sw a nson.F a ct or s I nfluen cin g Househ old R ecyclin g B e-havior. Environ. and Behavior 23(199 1):494519.

P ort er , B .E ., E C. Leem ing, a nd W.O. D wy er . S olidWa st e Recovery : A Review of B eha viora l P ro-gr ams t o I ncr ea s e Recy clin g. Environ. and Be-havior 27(1995): 12252.

S alt zma n, C ., V.G . D ugga l, a nd M.L. Willia ms. I n-com e a nd t he R ecyclin g E ffor t: A Ma xim iza t ionProblem. Energy Econ. 15(1993):3338.

S t eu teville, R . Th e S t a t e of G a r ba g e in Amer ica ,P a r t I I. BioCycle 36,5(May 1995):3037.

Vining, J ., a nd A. Ebreo. Wha t Makes a Recy-cler? Environ. and Behavior 22( 1990):5573.

Vining, J ,, N. Linn, a nd R.J . B urdge. Why Re-cy cle? A Compa rison of R ecy clin g Mot iva t ion sin Four Communit ies. Environ. Manage.16(1992):78597.

rural household recycling

Documents