Recycling: An Economic Analysis
Recycling: An Economic Analysis
复制标题
回收：经济分析
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1991
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Williams
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
V. Duggal;C. Saltzman;M. Williams
垃圾处理及其随之而来的环境影响正在成为国家关注的中心问题之一。各级政府正在讨论垃圾填埋场空间的减少、由此造成的垃圾填埋成本的急剧增加以及随之而来的环境问题。解决这一危机有三个基本的选择：（1）建设新的环境安全的垃圾填埋场，（2）建设焚烧厂，（3）通过价格激励和/或回收利用改变消费者行为来减少废物流。一些研究指出，由于“不要在我的后院综合症”，新的垃圾填埋场选址的政治问题（库克，1988年;赞迪，1989年）。同样，许多文章指出了焚烧厂的局限性，因为它们产生的灰烬可能有毒，必须在垃圾填埋场处理（Ecenberger，1989年; Lagone，1989年）。因此，大多数研究都集中在第三种选择上，这并不奇怪。然而，它集中在垃圾处理的价格和成本上，而不是家庭回收工作的作用。在70年代，有许多研究分析了垃圾处理的家庭价格弹性。Wertz（1976）提出了一个关于家庭产生废物行为的广泛理论模型。在对他的模型的实证检验中，他发现了一个负的价格弹性。两项计量经济学研究-一项基于对13个城市的横截面分析（麦克法兰，1972年），另一项基于对三个城市的时间序列分析（Eslfrat和Lanen，1979年）-估计价格弹性为负且无弹性。最近的研究采用案例研究方法，也计算出了负价格弹性（RTI，1990年），这意味着家庭为废物处理支付的价格与其收集的废物数量之间存在反比关系。Gueron（1972）认为，家庭垃圾收集的单位定价将导致消极的家庭处理替代方案，增加的污染和社会成本超过任何垃圾收集节省。其他研究人员认为，政府关于焚烧和乱扔垃圾的法令可以减少这种影响（戈达德，1975年）。最近的案例研究表明，对家庭废物收集实行单位定价不仅会减少废物总量，而且还可能增加家庭回收努力（Skalez，1989年; RTI，1990年; Jenkins，1990年）。然而，RTI的报告指出，单位定价政策的案例研究并没有确定废物收集的减少是单位定价还是回收计划的结果。他们认为这两者是互补的，但承认他们的结论反映的信息有限。对回收问题的研究主要集中在成本方面（Spaulding，1987年; Stauffer，1989年;兰金和Nosker，1989年; Morris和Platt，1987年; Vasuki，1988年）。莫里斯和普拉特研究了垃圾蒸汽工厂，中央回收设施和家庭回收的成本效益。他们得出结论，采用案例研究方法，在家庭一级进行回收是最具成本效益的。兰金和Nosker测量了回收捕获率和盈亏平衡处理成本之间的关系，发现捕获率约为80%的项目往往会通过避免固体废物处理成本和可回收物销售收入的结合产生正的净收入。据我们所知，只有两项研究试图研究影响家庭回收动机的因素。Mersky（1988）分析了参与居民对特拉华州县六个城市强制回收报纸的反应和意见，
Trash disposal and its ensuing environmental impact is becoming one of the central concerns of the nation. Dwindling landfill space, the resulting dramatic increase in landfill costs and the accompanying environmental concerns are being discussed at all levels of government. There are three basic options available for resolving the crisis: (1) building new landfill sites that are environmentally safe, (2) building incineration plants, and (3) reducing the waste stream by changing consumer behavior through price incentives and /or recycling. Several studies have pointed out the political problems of siting new landfills due to the "not in my backyard syndrome" (Cook, 1988; Zandi, 1989). Likewise, various articles have pointed out the limitations of incineration plants because they produce potentially toxic ash which must be disposed of in a landfill (Ecenberger, 1989; Lagone, 1989). It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the research focuses on the third option. However, it has concentrated on the price and cost of trash disposal rather than the role of the household recycling effort. During the seventies there were numerous studies which analyzed the household price elasticity for waste disposal. Wertz (1976) developed a broad theoretical model of household behavior regarding the production of waste. In an empirical test of his model he found a negative price elasticity. Two econometric studies, one based on a cross-section analysis of 13 municipalities (McFarland, 1972) and the other, a time-series analysis of three cities, (Eflaw and Lanen, 1979) estimated that the price elasticity was negative and inelastic. More recent research, using a case study approach, has also calculated a negative price elasticity (RTI, 1990) which implies an inverse relationship between the price the household pays for waste disposal and the amount of waste it puts out for collection. Gueron (1972) argued that unit pricing of household waste collection would result in negative alternative household disposal, with increased pollution and social costs outweighing any waste collection savings. Other researchers have suggested that government ordinances on burning and littering would reduce this impact (Goddard, 1975). More recent case studies have suggested that the introduction of unit pricing to household waste collection not only results in total waste reduction, but may also increase the household recycling effort (Skumatz, 1989; RTI, 1990; Jenkins, 1990). However, the RTI report points out that case studies of unit pricing policies do not establish if the reduction in waste collection is the result of unit pricing or recycling programs. They regard the two as complementary, but acknowledge that their conclusions reflect limited information. The studies that have concentrated on the recycling issue focus primarily on the cost aspect (Spaulding, 1987; Stauffer, 1989; Rankin and Nosker, 1989; Morris and Platt, 1987; and Vasuki, 1988). Morris and Platt examined the cost effectiveness of trash to steam plants, central recycling facilities, and recycling at the household level. They concluded, using a case study approach, that recycling at the household level was the most cost-effective. Rankin and Nosker measured the relationship between recycling capture rates and the breakeven disposal cost finding that programs with capture rates of approximately 80% tend to produce positive net revenues through a combination of avoided cost of solid waste disposal and revenues from the sale of recyclables. To our knowledge, there have been only two research efforts that attempt to examine the factors that influence the household incentive to recycle. Mersky (1988) analyzed the reactions and opinions of participating residents to mandatory newspaper recycling in six municipalities in Delaware County,