Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Solid Waste Management 4 (The importance of education has been highlighted…
Solid Waste Management 4
The impact of wealth upon state solid waste management has been reported on in several studies (Feiock and West, 1993; Khator, 1993b; Feiock and Stream, 1998). Wealthier communities presumably demand recycling and source reduction programs because well-off citizens are more willing and committed to try new programs and are also more concerned with their quality of life.
Feiock and West (1992) and Feiock and Kalan (2000) found income as a significant predictor of recycling program performance.
The importance of education has been highlighted in the literature as a measure of
environmental support (Feiock and Stream, 1998)
Mrozek (1996) found that college education level was a significant predictor of municipalities’ early decisions to adopt a curbside pick up recycling program. Berger
Berger (1997) analyzed data from 43,000 households in Canada and concluded that education and income are both positively associated with recycling usage and access to recycling services
Finally, states with more conservative citizens are less likely to support the commitment towards recycling both because of their reluctance to accept the increased public spending entailed by recycling programs (Wiseman, 1992; Hood, 1995) and because of less pro-active environmental concern.
The individual state legislator will therefore favor preventive solid waste policies in
communities where the median voter is wealthier, more educated, and more liberal because this will increase his/her chances of reelection.
In considering the economic trade-offs between alternative production technologies,
officials choose the combination of policy tools which maximizes the benefits of waste disposal at the least cost for the median taxpayer
Several authors have found evidence that the costs of operating curbside recycling programs exceed those of landfill disposal
Peretz (1990) argued that communities facing lack of landfill capacity face pressures to look for alternatives to solve the solid waste management problem.
-
State government level mandates, intergovernmental financial assistance, and general tax revenue to finance the recycling programs are equally important in altering the benefit/cost ratio of alternatives. These may constitute the incentives that help to break the vicious cycle described by McClain (1995).
Local governments receiving more funds to stimulate recycling are also more likely to display higher participation rates in the use of this policy tool
Feiock and West (1993) found that both state level mandates and intergovernmental financial assistance were significant predictors of the adoption of residential curbside programs.
The choice of policy tools at the local level is determined by an interplay of local institutions, socio-economic composition of the community, and decision makers minimizing political transaction costs.
Other empirical studies confirm the expectation that the presence and influence of
environmental support in a given municipality is associated with recycling programs larger in scope (Feiock and West, 1993) and with the performance of recycling programs (Feiock and West, 1996).
Manufacturing firms using recycled materials in their processes are likely to favor municipal curbside recycling over other options because it assures a more steady and predictable supply of recycled materials essential for their production activities.
An increased commitment to recycling on the part of local government will not only increase the overall amount of recycled materials but also reduce the price of recycled inputs therefore encouraging their use rather than virgin materials (Kinnaman and Fullerton, 1999; Miranda et al., 1994).
The
it is hypothesized here that the socio-economic composition of the community will significantly affect the combination of policy instruments adopted by that community
Previous findings indicate that wealthier, more educated and more liberal communities prefer waste prevention strategies. Two
KEY POINT: Several empirical pieces confirm the positive association between income and recycling (Feiock and West, 1993, 1996; Berger, 1997; Feiock and Kalan, 2001) and between income and adoption of unit pricing systems (Callan and Thomas, 1999)
Kinnaman and Fullerton (1997) find that the likelihood of a jurisdiction adopting curbside recycling increases by 0.86% with a one-percentage point increase from the average in the percentage of individuals with a bachelor degree.