Elsevier

Journal of Environmental Management

Volume 127, 30 September 2013, Pages 339-346
Journal of Environmental Management

Estimating the demand for drop-off recycling sites: A random utility travel cost approach

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We examine the demand for drop-off recycling sites using the random utility model.

  • Usage pattern of a site is influenced by its location relative to where people live.

  • Visits frequency is influenced by site attributes.

  • Site traits such as acceptance of commingled and yard-waste increase site visits.

Abstract

Drop-off recycling is one of the most widely adopted recycling programs in the United States. Despite its wide implementation, relatively little literature addresses the demand for drop-off recycling. This study examines the demand for drop-off recycling sites as a function of travel costs and various site characteristics using the random utility model (RUM). The findings of this study indicate that increased travel costs significantly reduce the frequency of visits to drop-off sites implying that the usage pattern of a site is influenced by its location relative to where people live. This study also demonstrates that site specific characteristics such as hours of operation, the number of recyclables accepted, acceptance of commingled recyclables, and acceptance of yard-waste affect the frequency of visits to drop-off sites.

Introduction

The four primary methods to collect recyclables in the United States are curbside programs, drop-off centers, buy-back centers, and deposit or refund programs (USEPA, 2010). Drop-off recycling is a recycling program where designated sites are established to collect a range of recyclables and usually the recyclers themselves are required to deposit the sorted recyclables in specially marked containers. Drop-off recycling is also one of the most widely adopted recycling programs by local governments in this country. As of 1998, there were 12,000 recyclable drop-off sites and 9000 curbside programs established in the United States (USEPA, 2000).

Drop-off recycling centers are less costly to operate compared to curbside programs, and they are also faster to implement than take-back programs or other similar programs involving manufacturers (Saphores et al., 2006). Drop-off program operators are able to save on labor and transportation costs because these costs are transferred on the recyclers. Drop-off operations typically do not impose any charges to recyclers utilizing drop-off sites. Drop-off recycling is also considered to be the most financially viable recycling option in areas with low population density such as in rural areas (Tiller et al., 1997).

Despite its wide implementation, relatively little published literature analyzes the demand for drop-off recycling. Curbside recycling as a waste management policy tool is the more popular in the field of recycling and waste management research. Fullerton and Kinnaman (1996), Hong and Adams (1999), Van Houtven and Morris (1999), Kinnaman and Fullerton (2000), Jenkins et al. (2003) analyze the effect of curbside recycling, together with other policy tools such as variable garbage pricing, on the amount of waste generation and recycling. Other curbside recycling research investigates the value consumers place on curbside recycling by computing their willingness to pay for the service (Lake et al., 1996; Aadland and Caplan, 1999, 2003; Blaine et al., 2005; Karaousakis and Birol, 2008).

Some of the few examples exceptions of recycling research that is related to drop-off recycling include Sidique et al. (2010a), Sidique et al. (2010b), and Tiller et al (1997). Using a panel of recycling rates of Minnesota counties, Sidique et al. (2010b) find that variable pricing of waste and that the availability of both curbside and drop-off recycling significantly increase a county's rate of recycling. Sidique et al. (2010a) find that utilization of drop-off recycling sites increases with familiarity with recycling, perceived convenience of recycling, and the perceived amount of social pressure to recycle.

Tiller et al (1997) is the stated preference study of a drop-off program conducted by Tiller, Jakus and Park in 1997. Their study analyzed the economic feasibility of establishing a drop-off recycling program in a rural and a suburban area of Tennessee by utilizing the contingent valuation method to calculate household willingness to pay (WTP) for the program. The estimated WTP for the three different types of households controlled for respondents' income, education level, age and attitudes toward the importance of recycling. They find that suburban recyclers, which consist of households with curbside recycling services, are willing to pay the most for drop-off recycling, with a mean WTP point estimate of $11.74 per month. Rural recyclers have a mean WTP of $7.07, and rural non-recyclers have the lowest mean household WTP of $4.05.

Chang and Wei (1999) examined the strategic planning aspects of drop-off recycling centers in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Their study analyzed the trade-off between the number and size of drop-off centers, walking distances to the drop-off centers, population covered in a service area and the driving distance of collection vehicles. The analysis was conducted by formulating a multi-objective mixed-integer linear programming model which balanced the following objectives: to maximize the population served by recycling centers, to minimize walking distance and to minimize total routing distance of collection vehicles subject to several physical constraints such as limit on drop-off centers in an area, service efficiency, capacity limitations, scheduling limitation and service area.

There are also a few other studies that have indirectly looked into drop-off recycling. Folz and Hazlett (1991) in a study examining the success of recycling programs reported that solid waste management experience of recycling coordinators is a very important factor in maximizing participation in drop-off programs. It was argued that experienced coordinators make better decisions in choosing the best strategic locations for drop-off centers. Folz also reported that advertising and promotion of recycling results in higher waste diversion to drop-off programs. In a descriptive study, Speirs and Tucker (2001) examined the profile of recyclers utilizing drop-off recycling sites in Glasgow and around Ayrshire in south–west Scotland. They reported on the recyclers' travel distances, the weights and types of recyclables and demographic characteristics. They also found that people whose trips were solely for the purpose of recycling tend to be a shorter distance from the sites compared to people who combine their recycling trips with other activities. In a more recent publication, Saphores et al. (2006) studied willingness to recycle electronic waste at drop-off centers by conducting a mail survey of households in California. The results from their multivariate analysis indicated that familiarity and convenience were very important factors in influencing willingness to recycle. People who are familiar or accustomed with glass, metal, paper or plastic recycling are more willing to recycle electronic waste. The study also found that people who lived more than 5 miles away from the nearest drop-off recycling center were less likely to recycle.

In comparison to the broader literature on recycling, and specifically the attention paid to curbside recycling, there are relatively few studies that analyze drop-off recycling. We address this gap by studying the demand for drop-off recycling sites in an urban area with several substitute sites using the random utility model (RUM). The main objective of this study is to use an economic demand model to examine the impact of location and different drop-off recycling site characteristics on drop-off recycling visits. We hypothesize that the travel costs incurred by recyclers to drop-off sites reduce site visits. We also hypothesize that site specific characteristics such as operating hours, number of recyclables accepted, acceptance of commingled recyclables and acceptance of yard-waste affect recycling visits. This study employs the RUM model to predict the changes in drop-off recycling patterns given the changes in site characteristics. This study improves our understanding to drop-off site attributes that may influence visitation demand. The study findings can be used by local governments and recycling and waste management companies to design and establish recycling drop-off centers that will increase site visitation and collection of recyclables.

Our study utilizes the revealed preference approach which is different from the study conducted by Tiller et al. (1997) that uses the stated preference approach. Unlike stated preference studies that rely on a respondent's survey answers on monetary amounts, choices, ratings or other preference indications to establish a measure of value on non-market goods or services (Brown, 2003), a revealed preference study collects information on respondents' actual behavior, such as number of visits and cost of traveling to particular sites, to establish the demand and value of these non-market goods or services. The RUM model which originates from the transportation field has been widely used in environmental economics to analyze the demand for recreational sites (e.g., Knoche and Lupi, 2007; Kotchen et al, 2006). However, we believe that our application of the RUM travel-cost method specifically to estimate the demand for drop-off recycling sites is a novel contribution to extant drop-off recycling research.

Section snippets

Theoretical framework

The RUM model is widely used to analyze discrete choices in the face of many substitutes. In our case, the RUM is appropriate because it is able to consider a household's selection of a drop-off recycling site, chosen from a set of many alternative drop-off sites, on an occasion in which they have chosen to visit a particular drop-off site. While the decision to utilize a drop-off site has many elements of a cost minimizing decision, we posit that households also have preferences (and hence

Questionnaire design

The questionnaire used in this study consisted of questions pertaining to the respondents' recycling activities. We included questions on the frequency of visits to drop-off sites in the past three months and one year to calculate site visits. Questions on the respondent's income and home address were also included in the questionnaire to compute the travel costs. These questions were asked at the end of the interview because we felt respondents would be more comfortable sharing personal

Model estimation and results

Our model uses the WESML estimation method specified as follows:vij=β1TRAVELCOSTij+β2HOURSij+β3NUMRECij+β4COMMINGij+β5YARDWASTEij+eijwhere vij is the indirect utility individual i gets from visiting site j, and each j has the same independent, Type 1 extreme value distribution,Fe(eij)=exp(exp(eij))which, under maximization, yields the conditional logit model for the choice probabilities as in (11). We also examine an extension of the basic model by incorporating interactions between

Conclusions

There are only a few studies on drop-off recycling despite the wide implementation of drop-off programs across this country. This study addresses this gap by using the RUM method to assess the demand for drop-off recycling sites. The use of a RUM model, which has been traditionally employed in transportation and recreation economics, is an appropriate and theoretically consistent way to analyze the demand for drop-off recycling sites in an urban setting with several substitute sites. The

References (26)

  • D. Aadland et al.

    Household valuation of curbside recycling

    J. Environ. Plann. Manag.

    (1999)
  • D. Aadland et al.

    Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias

    Am. J. Agr. Econ.

    (2003)
  • T.C. Brown

    Introduction to stated preference methods

  • Cited by (7)

    • Behaviour change in post-consumer recycling: Applying agent-based modelling in social experiment

      2018, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) provides a theoretical basis to investigate both internal and external factors (Boldero, 1995; Tonglet et al., 2004), as well as social norm and contexture culture effects (Botetzagias et al., 2015; Chan and Bishop, 2013; Nigbur et al., 2010), which affect the waste separation and recycling behavior in society. It has been widely used in building consistent policy framework to convey the appropriate opportunities, facilities and knowledge to recycle to the public (Davis et al., 2006), reduce barriers for physically recycling, such as time (Matsumoto, 2013), distance (Sidique et al., 2013), and inconvenience (Chu et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2016a; b). It also provides a suitable tool in cross-regional comparison (Stoeva and Alriksson, 2017), which facilitate the transmission from local practices to the regulatory process at upper level.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text