Household behavior under alternative pay-as-you-throw systems for solid waste disposal.
A study was conducted to examine household behavior under alternative pay-as-you-throw systems for solid-waste disposal. Data were drawn from from a 1994 survey of residents of Marietta, Georgia, across 16 sanitation routes. Rather than pay a fixed monthly fee for collection, half of the residents...
| Publicado en: | Land Economics Vol. 75; no. 4; pp. 515 - 538 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
University of Wisconsin Press
November 1999
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=511137411&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 511137411 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00237639 LAE jtl: Land Economics issn: 00237639 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: November 1999 vid: 75 iid: 4 pid: 249 pub: University of Wisconsin Press artinfo: ui: 511137411 10.2307/3147063 ppf: 515 ppct: 23 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: T tig: atl: Household behavior under alternative pay-as-you-throw systems for solid waste disposal. aug: au: Van Houtven, George L. Morris, Glenn E. su: Waste management -- Fees Household sanitation sug: subj: Waste management -- Fees Household sanitation keyword: Marietta (Ga.) -- Sanitary affairs Refuse and refuse disposal -- Cost effectiveness ab: A study was conducted to examine household behavior under alternative pay-as-you-throw systems for solid-waste disposal. Data were drawn from from a 1994 survey of residents of Marietta, Georgia, across 16 sanitation routes. Rather than pay a fixed monthly fee for collection, half of the residents paid a fee per reusable trash can, and half paid for each nonreusable trash bag collected. Findings revealed that the programs significantly reduced waste set-outs, even after accounting for increases in recycling. In addition, the bag program caused bigger reductions than the trash-can program, with reduction figures of 36 percent and 14 percent respectively. Rough estimates of the program suggest both savings for residents and social welfare increases. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|