International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

Table 8-6: Empirical Estimates of the Effect of Unit-pricing
140
29/09/09
Study Study Study
Data
Data
Wertz (1976)
Jenkins (1993)
Hong et al.
(1993)
Strathman et al.
(1995)
Van Houtven and
Morris (1999)
Van Houtven and
Morris (1999)
Reschovsky and
Stone (1994)
Fullerton and
Kinnaman (1996)
Podolsky and
Spiegel (1998)
Kinnaman and
Fullerton (1997)
Van Houtven and
Morris (1999)
Van Houtven and
Morris (1999)
Hong (1999)
Linderhof et al
(2001)
Linderhof et al
(2001)
Miranda et al.
(1994)
Callan and
Thomas (1997)
Seguino et al.
(1995)
Volume based - Compares subscription
program in San Francisco with flat fees
imposed by “all urban areas”
Volume-based - Panel of 14 cities (10 with
user fees) over 1980-88
Volume based - 1990 survey of 4,306
households in and around Portland,
Oregon.
Volume-based - Seven year (1984-1991)
time series in Portland, OR
Change Change in
in
Refuse
Refuse
ε = -0.15
ε = -0.12
No significant
impact
ε = -0.11
Volume (household survey data) ε = -0.10
Volume (municipality data) < 0
Sack-based - 1992 mail survey of 1,422
households in and around Ithaca, NY.
Sack-based - Two-period panel of 75
households in 1992
Sack-based - 1992 cross-section of 159
municipalities in NJ, 12 with unit-pricing
Sack-based - 1991 cross-section of 959
towns across the U. S., 114 with unitpricing
ε = -0.076
(weight)
ε = -0.226
(volume)
ε = -0.39
ε = -0.19
ε = -0.28
Sack-based (household survey data) ε = -0.26
Sack-based (municipality data) ε = -0.19
Sack-based – National data from Korean
volume based waste fee
Weight-based – compostable waste
(Oostzaan, Netherlands)
Weight-based - residual waste (Oostzaan,
Netherlands)
Various - Panel of 21 cities over 18
months beginning in 1990
Various (bag, tag, volume) - 1994 crosssection
of 324 towns in MA, 55 with unit-
pricing programs
1993-1994 cross section of 60 towns in
Maine, 29 with unit-pricing
ε = -0.15
ε = -1.39
ε = -0.34
17%-74%
reduction in
garbage
56% decrease
Change Change in
in
Recycling
Recycling
Unspecified
positive
relationship
No significant
impact
Cross-price
elasticity is 0.073
ε = 0.23
ε = 0.22
Average increase
of 128%
Source: Hogg, D., Wilson, D., Gibbs, A., Astley, M., Papineschi, J. (2006) Modelling the Impact of
Household Charging for Waste in England, Final Report to Defra.
8.5.8 Further Summarised Evidence Concerning Waste Prevention
ε = -0.07
The review in the appendices of the Defra charging review highlights many other
individual case studies where reductions in arisings are reported. Although prevention