Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/wiley/curbside-recycling-in-the-presence-of-alternatives-1VK5CW4cMK
References (29)
-
(2002)
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures -
D. Fullerton, Thomas Kinnaman (1994)
Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the BagThe American Economic Review, 86
-
M. Walls, K. Palmer (2001)
Upstream Pollution, Downstream Waste Disposal, and the Design of Comprehensive Environmental PoliciesJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41
-
D. Fullerton, Thomas Kinnaman (1994)
Household Responses for Pricing Garbage by the Bag,Public Economics eJournal
-
P. Jakus, K. Tiller, W. Park (1997)
Explaining Rural Household Participation in RecyclingJournal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 29
-
Thomas Kinnaman, D. Fullerton (2000)
Garbage and Recycling with Endogenous Local PolicyJournal of Urban Economics, 48
-
(1993)
“ Bottle Bills and Curbside Recycling : Are They Compatible ? ” Congressional Research Service -
Kaufman Kaufman, Goldstein Goldstein, Millrath Millrath, Themelis Themelis (2004)
“The State of Garbage in America.”BioCycle, 45
-
Robin Jenkins, S. Martínez, K. Palmer, Michael Podolsky (2003)
The Determinants of Household Recycling: A Material Specific Analysis of Recycling Program Features and Unit PricingJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45
-
J. Reschovsky, Sarah Stone (1994)
Market incentives to encourage household waste recycling: Paying for what you throw awayJournal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13
-
Bevin Ashenmiller (2006)
The Effect of Income on Recycling Behavior in the Presence of a Bottle Law: New Empirical ResultsThe American Economic Review
-
(1999)
Achieving 50% in California: Analysis of Recycling, Diversion and Cost-Effectiveness -
(2003)
Report to the California Legislature, Contract 5000-009 for the California Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling -
Chongwoo Choe, I. Fraser (1998)
The economics of household waste management: a reviewAustralian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 42
-
Kristen Patneaude, J. Reade (2004)
Wastewater treatment plant builds profit center from anaerobic digestion.Biocycle, 45
-
Seonghoon Hong, R. Adams, H. Love (1993)
An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid Wastes: The Case of Portland, OregonJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25
-
E. Dijkgraaf, R. Gradus (2008)
Environmental activism and dynamics of unit-based pricing systemsResource and Energy Economics, 31
-
Amy Ando, Anne Gosselin (2005)
Recycling in Multifamily Dwellings: Does Convenience Matter?Economic Inquiry, 43
-
(2003)
California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Study,” Report to the California Legislature, Contract 5000-009 for the California Department of Conservation -
Rob Aalbers, H. Vollebergh (2005)
An economic analysis of mixing wastesEnvironmental and Resource Economics, 39
-
P. Jakus, K. Tiller, W. Park (1996)
Generation of Recyclables by Rural HouseholdsJournal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21
-
Seonghoon Hong, R. Adams (1999)
Household Responses to Price Incentives for Recycling: Some Further EvidenceLand Economics, 75
-
(1993)
Bottle Bills and Curbside Recycling: Are They Compatible?’ -
K. Palmer, Hilary Sigman, M. Walls (1997)
The Cost of Reducing Municipal Solid WasteJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33
-
Calendar Year 2005 Report of Beverage Container Sales, Returns, Redemption, and Recycling Rates -
Calendar Year 2005 Report of Beverage Container Sales, Returns, Redemption, and Recycling Rates. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation -
S. Callan, Janet Thomas (1997)
The Impact of State and Local Policies on the Recycling EffortEastern Economic Journal, 23
-
(1994)
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Compost Options: Lessons from 30 Communities -
R. Steuteville (1995)
The state of garbage in AmericaBiocycle, 32
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2007 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
- ISSN
- 0095-2583
- eISSN
- 1465-7295
- DOI
- 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00055.x
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
We measure the extent to which curbside access affects quantity recycled. We use novel data to distinguish between new recycling and material diverted from other recycling modes. We find that the marginal impact of expanding curbside programs on total recycled quantities is small, in part because curbside programs significantly cannibalize returns from drop‐off recycling centers. Failure to account for cannibalization from other modes may substantially overestimate the benefits of curbside programs. We conclude with simple cost‐effectiveness comparisons. Results suggest that incremental expansion of curbside access may not be cost‐effective. (JEL Q53, Q58, H72)
Journal
Economic Inquiry – Wiley
Published: Oct 1, 2007