[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i17p9540-d621278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Bottle Banks Sufficiently Effective for Increasing Glass Recycling Rates?

Author

Listed:
  • Elbert Dijkgraaf

    (Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Graduate School, Tinbergen Institute, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Raymond Gradus

    (Graduate School, Tinbergen Institute, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract
The Netherlands is a frontrunner in the EU regarding the circular economy. On a national scale, there are higher targets than the EU for different packaging materials as plastics, glass, paper/cartons, and aluminium. For glass, the government advocates a recycling rate of more than 90%. In 2017, the rate realised was 86%. To reach this 4% higher goal, the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate wants to improve the collection infrastructure by increasing the number of bottle banks, with 800 by 2021. However, in the literature, an effectiveness analysis is lacking. Based on empirical evidence with data from 2007–2019, we show that increasing the number of bottle banks is not effective. Implementing a unit-based pricing system as a priced bag or container for unsorted waste can be more effective in achieving this goal, although this can have serious drawbacks.

Suggested Citation

  • Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2021. "Are Bottle Banks Sufficiently Effective for Increasing Glass Recycling Rates?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9540-:d:621278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9540/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9540/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2017. "An EU Recycling Target: What Does the Dutch Evidence Tell Us?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 501-526, November.
    2. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2020. "Post-collection Separation of Plastic Waste: Better for the Environment and Lower Collection Costs?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 127-142, September.
    3. Gorm Kipperberg, 2007. "A Comparison of Household Recycling Behaviors in Norway and the United States," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(2), pages 215-235, February.
    4. Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman, 2002. "Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 4, pages 88-101, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Tobias Erhardt, 2019. "Garbage In and Garbage Out? On Waste Havens in Switzerland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 251-282, May.
    6. Raymond Gradus, 2020. "Postcollection Separation of Plastic Recycling and Design-For-Recycling as Solutions to Low Cost-Effectiveness and Plastic Debris," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-12, October.
    7. Carattini, Stefano & Baranzini, Andrea & Lalive, Rafael, 2018. "Is Taxing Waste a Waste of Time? Evidence from a Supreme Court Decision," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 131-151.
    8. Jenkins, Robin R. & Martinez, Salvador A. & Palmer, Karen & Podolsky, Michael J., 2003. "The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 294-318, March.
    9. Gradus, Raymond H.J.M. & Nillesen, Paul H.L. & Dijkgraaf, Elbert & van Koppen, Rick J., 2017. "A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for Incineration or Recycling of Dutch Household Plastic Waste," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 22-28.
    10. David Romer, 2020. "In Praise of Confidence Intervals," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 110, pages 55-60, May.
    11. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2016. "Post Separation of Plastic Waste: Better for the Environment and Lower Collection Costs," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-103/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Thomas C. Kinnaman & Kenji Takeuchi (ed.), 2014. "Handbook on Waste Management," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14571.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John-Michael Davis & José Bauza-Mora & Douglas Cain & Leah Harnisch-Weidauer & Claire Matthews & Priyankha Sunil, 2024. "An Economically Sustainable Glass Recycling Business Model in Puerto Rico: A Conceptual Solution for Regions Without Government Recycling Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Marion Garaus & Christian Garaus & Elisabeth Wolfsteiner & Charlotte Jermendy, 2022. "Anthropomorphism as a Differentiation Strategy for Standardized Reusable Glass Containers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2019. "More bottle banks only imply a small increase in recycling of glass in the Netherlands," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-088/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Raymond Gradus, 2020. "Postcollection Separation of Plastic Recycling and Design-For-Recycling as Solutions to Low Cost-Effectiveness and Plastic Debris," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-12, October.
    3. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2020. "Post-collection Separation of Plastic Waste: Better for the Environment and Lower Collection Costs?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 127-142, September.
    4. Bueno, Matheus & Valente, Marica, 2019. "The effects of pricing waste generation: A synthetic control approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 274-285.
    5. Ek, Claes & Söderberg, Magnus, 2024. "Norm-based feedback on household waste: Large-scale field experiments in two Swedish municipalities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    6. Carattini, Stefano & Baranzini, Andrea & Lalive, Rafael, 2018. "Is Taxing Waste a Waste of Time? Evidence from a Supreme Court Decision," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 131-151.
    7. Ishimura, Yuichi, 2022. "The effects of the containers and packaging recycling law on the domestic recycling of plastic waste: Evidence from Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    8. Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Vittucci Marzetti, Giuseppe, 2019. "Recycling and Waste Generation: An Estimate of the Source Reduction Effect of Recycling Programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 321-329.
    9. Raymond (R.H.J.M.) Gradus & Elbert (E.) Dijkgraaf, 2017. "Dutch Municipalities are Becoming Greener: Some Political and Institutional Explanations," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-086/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Kipperberg, Gorm & Nyborg, Karine, 2009. "Reluctant Recyclers: Social Interaction in Responsibility Ascription," Memorandum 16/2007, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    11. Pfister, Naomi & Mathys, Nicole A., 2022. "Waste taxes at work: Evidence from the canton of Vaud in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    12. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Kądziela, Tadeusz & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "We want to sort! Assessing households’ preferences for sorting waste," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 290-306.
    13. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Dutch Municipal Recycling Policies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-155/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Lihini Silva & Rebecca L. C. Taylor, 2024. "If You Build It, Will They Compost? The Effects of Municipal Composting Services on Household Waste Disposal and Landfill Emissions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(3), pages 761-789, March.
    15. Valente, Marica, 2023. "Policy evaluation of waste pricing programs using heterogeneous causal effect estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    16. Damiano Fiorillo, 2013. "Household waste recycling: national survey evidence from Italy," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(8), pages 1125-1151, October.
    17. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi & Kawai, Kosuke & Higuchi, Yuki, 2018. "Informal recycling and social preferences: Evidence from household survey data in Vietnam," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 109-124.
    18. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2016. "Post Separation of Plastic Waste: Better for the Environment and Lower Collection Costs," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-103/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. D'Amato, Alessio & Mancinelli, Susanna & Zoli, Mariangela, 2016. "Complementarity vs substitutability in waste management behaviors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 84-94.
    20. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2017. "An EU Recycling Target: What Does the Dutch Evidence Tell Us?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 501-526, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9540-:d:621278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.