[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20160103.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Post Separation of Plastic Waste: Better for the Environment and Lower Collection Costs

Author

Listed:
  • Elbert Dijkgraaf

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Raymond Gradus

    (VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract
The European Union (EU) advocates a plastic waste recycling rate of more than 55% through home separation by households. Even for the Netherlands, which has already invested heavily in plastic recycling policies, there is still a challenge to meet this target. We show that post separation is an advisable alternative with more separation of plastic waste and lower collection costs. Based on data for 2013-2014, Dutch municipalities with post-separation have 6.2 kilogram more plastic than municipalities with only bring locations. Moreover, the effectiveness of post separation increases significantly over time to 8.4 kilograms in 2014. Also curbside collection of plastic waste can be effective, if it is combined with an unit-based pricing system, but in such a case the collection costs are higher. Therefore, there are indications that the cost effectiveness of recycling plastic waste increases, if post separation is chosen.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20160103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/16103.pdf
    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. 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.
    3. Abbott, Andrew & Nandeibam, Shasikanta & O'Shea, Lucy, 2013. "Recycling: Social norms and warm-glow revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 10-18.
    4. Kinnaman, Thomas C. & Shinkuma, Takayoshi & Yamamoto, Masashi, 2014. "The socially optimal recycling rate: Evidence from Japan," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 54-70.
    5. D'Amato, Alessio & Mancinelli, Susanna & Zoli, Mariangela, 2016. "Complementarity vs substitutability in waste management behaviors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 84-94.
    6. Raymond Gradus & Rick van Koppen & Elbert Dijkgraaf & Paul Nillesen, 2016. "A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Incineration or Recycling of Dutch Household Plastics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-039/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Maarten A. Allers & Corine Hoeben, 2010. "Effects of Unit-Based Garbage Pricing: A Differences-in-Differences Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 405-428, March.
    8. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2015. "Efficiency Effects of Unit-Based Pricing Systems and Institutional Choices of Waste Collection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(4), pages 641-658, August.
    9. Thomas C. Kinnaman & Kenji Takeuchi (ed.), 2014. "Handbook on Waste Management," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14571.
    10. Jan K. Brueckner, 2003. "Strategic Interaction Among Governments: An Overview of Empirical Studies," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 175-188, April.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2021. "Are Bottle Banks Sufficiently Effective for Increasing Glass Recycling Rates?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-11, August.
    4. Peter Birch Sørensen, 2017. "The Basic Environmental Economics of The Circular Economy," EPRU Working Paper Series 17-04, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.

    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, 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.
    2. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Dutch Municipal Recycling Policies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-155/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Valente, Marica, 2023. "Policy evaluation of waste pricing programs using heterogeneous causal effect estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    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. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2015. "Efficiency Effects of Unit-Based Pricing Systems and Institutional Choices of Waste Collection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(4), pages 641-658, August.
    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. 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.
    11. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2021. "Are Bottle Banks Sufficiently Effective for Increasing Glass Recycling Rates?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-11, August.
    12. Germà Bel & Raymond Gradus, 2014. "“Effects of unit-based pricing on the waste collection demand: a meta-regression analysis”," IREA Working Papers 201420, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jun 2014.
    13. 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.
    14. Damiano Fiorillo & Luigi Senatore, 2020. "Pro-social behaviours, waste concern and recycling behaviour in Italy at the end of the 1990s," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(2), pages 127-151, April.
    15. 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).
    16. Bel, Germà & Gradus, Raymond, 2016. "Effects of unit-based pricing on household waste collection demand: A meta-regression analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 169-182.
    17. Raymond Gradus & Rick van Koppen & Elbert Dijkgraaf & Paul Nillesen, 2016. "A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Incineration or Recycling of Dutch Household Plastics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-039/VI, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Cecere, Grazia & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2014. "Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 163-176.
    19. Viscusi, W. Kip & Huber, Joel & Bell, Jason, 2023. "Changes in household recycling behavior: Evidence from panel data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    20. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    plastic waste; recycling; post separation; home separation; cost effectiveness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • Q38 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy (includes OPEC Policy)
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:tin:wpaper:20160103. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.