Increasing stockpiles of electronic waste (e-waste) combined with low recycling rates are threatening human and environmental health because of the hazardous materials in electronic products. To date, however, little is known about household preferences for e-waste recycling alternatives. This study starts filling this gap. Our 2004 mail survey indicates that California households prefer “drop-off recycling at regional centers,” with “curbside recycling” a close second. A contingent ranking (CR) analysis shows that households are willing to pay approximately $0.13 per equivalent mile per month to increase e-waste recycling convenience. Our results show that ignoring environmental attitudes and beliefs leads to biased estimates of the trade-offs households are making between cost and recycling convenience. A good understanding of these trade-offs is necessary for a successful recycling program. Finally, this article illustrates some of the strengths and weaknesses of CR, an underused technique for analyzing preference rankings.
Alreck, P.L., & Settle, R.B. (1995). The survey research handbook (2nd ed.). Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill .
2.
Alwin, D.F., & Krosnick, J.A. (1985). The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 535-552.
3.
Bateman, I.J., Cole, M.A., Georgiou, S., & Hadley, D.J. (2006). Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: A case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. Journal of Environmental Management, 79, 221-231.
4.
Beggs, S., Cardell, S., & Hausman, J. (1981). Assessing the potential demand for electric cars . Journal of Econometrics, 16, 1-19.
5.
Boldero, J. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of attitudes, intentions, and situational factors1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 440-462.
6.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. ( 2004). Statewide waste characterization study (Publication No. 340-04-005). Sacramento, CA: Author .
7.
Caplan, A.J., Grijalva, T.C., & Jakus, P.M. (2002). Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options. Ecological Economics, 43, 185-197.
8.
Carson, R.T. (1997). Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. In R. J. Koop, W. W. Pommerehne & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Determining the value of nonmarketed goods: Economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods (pp. 127-164). New York: Springer .
9.
Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., & Hanemann, W.M. (1998). Sequencing and valuing public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 36, 314-323.
10.
Cheng, S., & Long, J.S. (2007). Testing for IIA in the multinomial logit model . Sociological Methods & Research, 35, 583-600.
11.
Chu, P.-Y., & Chiu, J.-F. (2003). Factors influencing household waste recycling behavior: Test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 604-626.
12.
Clark, C.F., Kotchen, M.J., & Moore, M.R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 237-246.
13.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R., & Bohlen, G.M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56, 465-480.
14.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2001 facts and figures (No. EPA530-R-03-011) . Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
15.
Foster, V., & Mourato, S. (2000). Valuing the multiple impacts of pesticide use in the UK: A contingent ranking approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51, 1-21.
16.
Foster, V., & Mourato, S. (2002). Testing for consistency in contingent ranking experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 44, 309-328.
17.
Garrod, G.D., & Willis, K.G. (1997). The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study. Ecological Economics, 21, 45-61.
18.
Garrod, G.D., & Willis, K.G. (1998). Using contingent ranking to estimate the loss of amenity value for inland waterways from public utility service structures . Environmental and Resource Economics, 12, 241-247.
19.
General Accounting Office. (2005). Electronic waste: Strengthening the role of the federal government in encouraging recycling and reuse (Report to Congressional Requesters). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20.
Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699-718.
21.
Hanemann, W.M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation . Journal of Environmental Management, 56, 221-229.
22.
Hanemann, W.M. (1996). Theory versus data in the contingent valuation debate. In D. J. Bjornstad & J. R. Kahn (Eds.), The contingent valuation of environmental resources: Methodological issues and research needs (pp. 38-60). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
23.
Harris, B., & Burress, D. (2000). Demands for local and organic produce: A brief review of the literature. Lawrence, KS: Institute for Public Policy and Business Research.
24.
Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., & Narayana, C. (1995). Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Socio-Economics, 24, 105-127.
25.
International Association of Electronics Recyclers. (2006). IAER electronics recycling industry report. Portland, OR: Resources Recycling.
26.
Isangkura, A. (1998). Environmental valuation: An entrance fee system for national parks in Thailand. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
27.
Jakus, P.M., Tiller, K.H., & Park, W.M. (1996). Generation of recyclables by rural households . Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21, 96-108.
28.
Jakus, P.M., Tiller, K.H., & Park, W.M. (1997). Explaining rural household participation in recycling . Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29, 141-148.
29.
Jenkins, R.R., Martinez, S.A., Palmer, K., & Podolsky, M.J. (2003). The determinants of household recycling: A material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 45, 294-318.
30.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
31.
Krystallis, A., & Chryssohoidis, G. (2005). Consumers' willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. British Food Journal, 107, 320-343.
32.
Lareau, T.J., & Rae, D.A. (1989). Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: An application of contingent ranking technique. Southern Economic Journal , 55, 728-742.
33.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 503-520.
34.
Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., & Grice, J. (2004). Choosing organics: A path analysis of factors underlying the selection of organic food amongAustralian consumers. Appetite, 43, 135-146.
35.
Long, J.S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station: Stata Press.
36.
Loureiro, M.L., & Hine, S. (2004). Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labeling policies. Food Policy, 29, 467-483.
37.
Machado, F.S., & Mourato, S. (2002). Evaluating the multiple benefits of marine water quality improvements: How important are health risk reductions? Journal of Environmental Management, 65, 239-250.
38.
Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self-expressive behaviour . Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 227-236.
39.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.
40.
Mitchell, R.C., & Carson, R.T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
41.
Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., & Foster, V. (2000). Evaluating healthy and environmental impacts of pesticide use: Implications for the design of ecolabels and pesticide taxes . Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 1456-1461.
42.
Oskamp, S. (1995). Resource conservation and recycling: Behavior and policy. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 157-173.
43.
Owens, J., Dickerson, S., & Macintosh, D.L. (2000). Demographic covariates of residential recycling efficiency. Environment and Behavior , 32, 637-650.
44.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36, 70-93.
45.
Saphores, J.-D., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O., & Shapiro, A. (2006). Household willingness to recycle electronic waste: An application to California. Environment and Behavior, 38, 183-208.
46.
Schultz, P.W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 105-121.
47.
Slothuus, U., Larsen, M.L., & Junker, P. (2002). The contingent ranking method: A feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care? Social Science and Medicine, 54, 1601-1609.
Sterner, T., & Bartelings, H. (1999). Household waste management in a Swedish municipality: Determinants of waste disposal, recycling and composting . Environmental and Resource Economics, 13, 473-491.
50.
Thogersen, J., & Olander, F. (2006). To what degree are environmentally beneficial choices reflective of a general conservation stance? Environment and Behavior, 38, 550-569.
51.
Townsend, T.G., & Musson, S.E. (2006). Assessing the landfill disposal implication of discarded electronic equipment. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment (pp. 298-301). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
52.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior, 22, 55-73.
