Estimating economic value of household municipal solid waste reduction program: A willingness-to-accept (WTA) approach
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study is aimed at estimating economic value of municipal solid waste (MSW) reduction program in the Mekong Delta by employing the willingness-to-accept (WTA) approach. This research will address two important issues in current growing literature about MSW management. First, this is the first research to evaluate economic value of the MSW reduction program in Mekong Delta. The second major contribution is the approach employed - supply curve through the WTA. This program requires community participation and provision incentives to them, therefore the requirement of public acceptance through WTA is estimated. Findings reveal that people are willing to accept an average of 30,000 VND/month for the MSW reduction program. Assume that household's MSW management fee subsidy policy is canceled, and the household is facing a full fee for the MSW collection (about 150,000 VND/month), they are willing to classify MSW at source to get a reduction of 30,000 VND or they are willing to accept a fee of 120,000 VND/month. In addition, it is interesting that more than 70 percent of people are willing to participate in this program. The determinants of WTA identified include the type of MSW at the source, education level, type of urban areas. This research then proposes that MSW management implementation policy should be focused on motivating households and improving people's perception of MSW. In case of government budget deficit, community participation would be more appropriate to manage MSW.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601-4614.
Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2001). Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?: Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41(2), 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2000.1138
Can Tho City Department of Construction. (2018). Report on the supervision of the City People's Council on the implementation and management of daily-life solid waste in Can Tho city (No. 1958/BC-SXD dated 18 September 2018).
Chien, Y. L., Huang, C. J., & Shaw, D. (2005). A general model of starting point bias in double-bonded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2005.01.002
Cooper, J. C., Hanemann, M., & Signorello, G. (2002). One-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 742-750. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556549
Cummings, R. G., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (1995). Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?. The American Economic Review, 85(1), 260-266.
Czajkowski, M., Kądziela, T., & Hanley, N. (2014). We want to sort! Assessing households’ preferences for sorting waste. Resource and energy economics, 36(1), 290-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.05.006
Del Saz-Salazar, S., Hernández-Sancho, F., & Sala-Garrido, R. (2009). The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Science of the Total Environment, 407(16), 4574-4583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.010
Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of economic perspectives, 8(4), 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.45
Dupraz, P., Vermersch, D., De Frahan, B. H., & Delvaux, L. (2003). The environmental supply of farm households: a flexible willingness to accept the model. Environmental and resource economics, 25(2), 171-189. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910720219
Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843765431
Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. Journal of economic perspectives, 26(4), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.43
Karousakis, K., & Birol, E. (2008). Investigating household preferences for kerbside recycling services in London: A choice experiment approach. Journal of environmental management, 88(4), 1099-1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.05.015
Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.Z.; & Christensen, T. H. (2014). Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems–Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Management, 34(3), 573-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.045
Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (2013). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Rff Press.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2019). National environmental status report 2019. http://vea.gov.vn/detail?$id=1026
Nguyen, K. T., Knetsch, J. L., & Mahasuweerachai, P. (2021). WTP or WTA: A Means of Determining the Appropriate Welfare Measure of Positive and Negative Changes When Preferences are Reference Dependent. Environmental and Resource Economics, 78(4), 615-633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00546-0
Ojok, J., Koech, M. K., Tole, M., & OkotOkumu, J. (2012). Households' Willingness to Pay for Improved Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in Kampala, Uganda. Science Journal of Environmental Engineering Research, 2013, 1-8.
Pearce, D. W., & Moran, D. (2013). The economic value of biodiversity. Routledge.
Peterson, L. G. (2003). A primer on nonmarket valuation (Vol. 3). P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Small, N., Munday, M., & Durance, I. (2017). The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Global Environmental Change, 44, 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.005
Singhirunnusorn, W., Donlakorn, K., & Kaewhanin, W. (2012). Contextual factors influencing household recycling behaviours: A case of waste bank project in Mahasarakham municipality. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 688-697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.075
General Statistics Office of Viet Nam. (2020). Report of the population and housing census 2019. https://www.gso.gov.vn/su-kien/2019/12/thong-cao-bao-chi-ket-qua-tong-dieu-tra-dan-so-va-nha-o-nam-2019/
Yuan, Y., & Yabe, M. (2014). Residents’ willingness to pay for household kitchen waste separation services in Haidian and Dongcheng districts, Beijing city. Environments, 1(2), 190-207. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments1020190