Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint
Centre for Innovative Planning and Development (CIPD), Facuty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Institute for Environment and Sustainable Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (National University of Malaysia), 43600 UKM Bangi,
Selangor, Malaysia
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Available online 24 February 2015
This study explored and analyzed household acceptance of the curbside recycling scheme (CRS) in
selected residential areas in Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory (KLFT), Malaysia where the number of dropoff recycling facilities are limited. The analysis identied the socio-economic factors that affect the respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for CRS. A survey using standardized questionnaires of the
contingent valuation method (CVM) was administered to 460 households. The proposed scheme
received a positive response with high willingness of residents to separate (90%) but low WTP (34%) for
the scheme charges. Despite the average of WTP curbside recycling charges of MYR88.80 added to
household annual tax has translated into MYR7.40 per month (USD 2.50), the study revealed various
issues to improve existing recycling facilities with the solid waste management (SWM) and recycling
practices. The analysis further revealed that CRS gained support from the Chinese who practice recycling
and also from older age groups with the involvement of other family members such as a father/husband
and adult and household who has the right attitude towards recycling. It showed the demand for more
convenient recycling services which is an improvement from drop-off recycling facilities or a public
recycling facilities to a private recycling services at the household level. Finally, CRS has potential
application in the middle-high income residential areas of Bangsar and Wangsa Maju.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Curbside recycling
Willingness to pay (WTP)
Contingent valuation method (CVM)
Recycling facilities
Source separation
Solid waste management
Introduction
Household recycling activity in Malaysia is still sporadic and
concentrated mainly in the urban and sub-urban areas. It is supported by public recycling facilities as part of the Second National
Recycling Campaign that was launched in 2000 by the Ministry of
Housing and Local Government. At the same time, solid waste
management (SWM) underwent a privatization process in 1999
which involved private concessionaire in recycling campaign.
As an effort to encourage household recycling practice, government provided the public with recycling facilities. Statistical
records showed that 62 and 1000 recycle bins were distributed
respectively in Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory (KLFT) and in the
other 13 states of Malaysia as part of the recycling campaign
(Annual Statistical Year Book, 2004). The 120-L recycle bins were
located at public spaces such as shopping malls, petrol stations,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: irinasatri@utm.my, irinasatri@gmail.com (I.S. Zen), csiwar@
ukm.my (C. Siwar).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.01.014
0197-3975/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
249
250
found out that households put a high value in solid waste management and would be willing to pay a premium for more frequent
collections and better waste transport and disposal methods.
However, they would not necessarily be willing to pay for recycling
facilities. Another study by Afroz and Masud (2011) found that
households in Kuala Lumpur were not willing to pay additional
charges for recycling collection and recycle bins provided by the
mandatory source separation. These two studies portrayed the
negative response towards CRS. However, they were not specic
with regards to public recycling facilities such as recycle bins and
the RC/BBC.
Though there is a serious effort and commitment from the
government to provide recycling facilities at the public level as part
of the improvement of SWM, further studies need to be carried out
to identify households' response to the existing recycling program
that largely depends on the bring-in system and how the households perceive the adoption of CRS as part of the existing SWM
system in the country.
Survey design and methodology
Three middle-high income residential areas in KLFT were
selected: Bangsar, Taman Tun Dr Ismail (TTDI) and Wangsa Maju
that are dominated by landed properties. Besides the limited
number of public recycling facilities, the three areas have been
selected from the AFSB list of recycling/buyback centers consisting
of two xed recycling/buyback centers and eight mobile recycling/
buyback centers (Alam Flora, 2009). In addition to that, there are
active community recycling activities supported by local NGOs and
residential associations.
The socioeconomic and demographic prole of the study area,
according to Annual Malaysia Statistical Book (2004) are as follows:
the number of male and female residents was 64,005 (49%) and
66,618 (51%), the racial composition was made up of 38% Malays
(Bumiputeras), 43% Chinese, 10% Indians and 9% other races. The
composition of the age of the residents showed that the highest
percentage was in the 15e39 age bracket, 46%, 27% of the residents,
were between 0 and 14 years old, 23% were 40e64 years old and 4%
were above 65 years. The monthly gross income of households in
residential areas in Kuala Lumpur was MYR 4105 (US$1 368.33)
(Malaysia, 2001).
The sample size determination was generated from the total
populations of the three residential areas of 130,623 (Annual
Statistical Year Book, 2004). By using households comprising of
ve family members as a unit of study, the target population
identied was 26,125 householders. Using the sample size generation formula from Mendenhall, Ott, and Scheaffer (1996) and to
fulll the analysis requirement, 460 sample sizes were used.
Households function as decision makers in response to the curbside
recycling services offered. It is a unit of analysis on the payment
vehicle selected, annual assessment tax, which is on a household
basis (Wilks, 1990). The head of the household was prioritized to
respond to the questionnaire. However, the wife/mother or any
young adult over 18 years could be involved as a respondent when
there was difculty in interviewing the head of the family. Face-toface or personal interviews were conducted from house to house.
The selection of houses near the recycling facility was done
randomly.
The CV survey method is a tool to evaluate the willingness to pay
(WTP) of the public goods and services and was developed by
Mitchell and Carson (1989). Normally, difculties in valuing the
services proposed hampered most of the CV studies conducted
where there is hypothetical bias of scenario services offered in the
questionnaire (Hoehn, 1991). Difculties also arise if the respondents are not familiar with the scenario services to be valued.
In order to reduce this difculty, the CRS proposed in the questionnaire will contradict with the existing practices of drop-off
recycling as an effort to highlight the goodness of CRS. It will help
in reducing the psychological burden of respondents in making
decision and reduce the hypothetical bias.
The proposed charges of CRS might pose a challenge to the
existing practice that provides monetary incentives such as the
recycling/back center and the business oriented door-to-door
itinerant recycle buyers. The last one, which offered convenience
in will recycling mimic the curbside recycle proposed in the study.
It has been widely known that situational factors, such as convenience, positively relate to the household participation (Bowman
et al., 1998). Thus, the study will look at the possibilities on the CRS
acceptance compared to the existing public recycling facility and
other various recycling services.
The WTP for CRS correlates with the issue of charges. Currently,
the solid waste management charge in Malaysia is part of the
annual assessment fee and varies according to residential house
size. The charges translate into a monthly at rate of MYR10
(US$3.33) that cover household solid waste collection for three
times a week, public cleansing, and garden and bulky items
collection on call basis (Alam Flora, 2004; Sakawi, 2011). However,
there is no budgetary allocation dedicated to recycling collection.
This payment vehicle is clearly stated in the WTP question of the
hypothetical scenario of the CV survey. It is different with other
scenario studies of WTP by Othman (2002) and Afroz and Masud
(2011) who put the additional charges as part of improvement of
solid waste collection charges.
In a process to identify households' acceptance of curbside
recycling, the hypothetical market in the questionnaire of CV surveys was started with three stages of questions; i. Willingness to
separate the recyclable items, ii. Support of curbside recycling and
iii. WTP for curbside recycling. The three stages of questions are
detailed as follows:
1. Willingness to separate (WTS)
The statement: At this time the recycling program requires you
to bring recyclable items to the recycling center or public recycle
bin. The additional curbside recycles collection at home can save
your time and make recycling convenient for you.
Question: If local authority will come and collect your recyclable items once a week at home with a specially designated
recycle bin provided for each house, will you separate your recyclable item?
Answer: Yes/No.
2. Willingness to support (WTSu) curbside recycling collection
The special curbside recycling collection at home with free
recycling bin, collected once a week and mandatory separation will
improve the effectiveness of household recycling activity. For your
information, the existing solid waste collection at this time is
provided from your annual assessment tax and does not include the
special recyclable collection.
Question: Will you be willing to support and pay extra charges
to get an additional recyclable items collection once a week with a
compulsion to do source separation?
Answer: Yes/No
3. Willingness to pay (WTP) for curbside recycling collection
Question: How much additional payment of the existing annual
assessment tax are you willing to pay for extra curbside recyclable
collection at home?
Explanation
Mandatory
Mandatory recyclable
separation
Collect1x
Age
Wife
Educ
Education level of
respondent
Chinrec
Recimprt
Income
Values
Numeric (MYR)
251
252
Table 2
Reasons for non-support of Curbside Recycling Scheme (n 224).
List of reasons
Frequency
(n 224)
Percentage (%)
47
22
40
18
8
27
103
4
12
46
Table 3
Mean amount of WTP for curbside recycling (n 188).
Research
zone area
Means (MYR)
annually
Means (MYR)
Monthly
Sample
(N 188)
Median (MYR)
annually
Min (MYR)
annually
Max (MYR)
annually
Bangsar
Wangsa Maju
TTDI
Average
70.98
85.46
104.98
88.80
5.92
7.12
8.67
7.40
55
60
73
e
81.54
90.40
108.22
95.95
50.00
60.00
60.00
e
2.00
2.00
5.00
e
360.00
400.00
600.00
e
253
Table 4
Descriptive statistics.
Variable
Log willingness
Activezone
Mandatory
Collect1x
Age
Wife
Educ
Chinrec
Recimprt
Income
Means
Standard deviation
0.30
e
e
e
0.18
e
e
e
1.60
e
0.66
e
5.43
1.63
3.00
4976.61
1.70
2740.47
Minimum
Maximum
0.16
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1.44
1
1
1
3
1
8
1
6
11
Table 5
Estimation for independent and dependent variable of Ordinary Least Square Model.
Model
Unstandardized coefcient
Signicance levels
Standard error
Constant
0.322
0.075
4.304
Activezone
0.049
0.029
1.718
Mandatory
#0.016
0.027
#0.583
Collect1x
0.018
0.027
0.602
Age
0.048
0.021
2.298
Wife
#0.053
0.032
#1.687
Educ
0.061
0.010
#0.603
Chinrec
0.136
0.041
3.283
Recimprt
0.012
0.008
#1.656
Income
#0.007
0.006
#1.143
R2 0.163
2
Adjusted R 0.112
Error estimation standardization 0.16
Average dependent variable 0.30
F-value 3.187
Durbin Watson 1.621
Conditional index 16.852
Dependent variable (Y) log willingness to pay
0.000
0.088**
0.561
0.548
0.023**
0.094**
0.548
0.001***
0.010*
0.255
254
Agamuthu, P., Fauziah, S. H., & Khidzir, K. M. (2009). 3R related policies for sustainable waste management in Malaysia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 1(2), 96e103.
Agamuthu, P., Fauziah, S. H., Khidzir, K. M., & Aiza, A. N. (2007). Sustainable waste
management e Asian perspectives. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, 5e7 September 2007, Chennai, India (pp.
15e26).
Alam Flora. (2004). 3R Annual Report 2004. 3R Department, Alam Flora Sdn. Bhd. Shah
Alam, Selangor.
Alam Flora. (2008). 3R Annual Report 2007. 3R Department, Alam Flora Sdn. Bhd. Shah
Alam, Selangor.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of
warmer-glow-giving. The Economic Journal, 100, 464e477.
Annual Statistical Year Book. (2004). Statistic department of Malaysia.
Bardos, P., Burton, J., Brulace, C. J., Derry, a r., Ikuwe, A., Pendle, W., et al. (1990).
Market barriers, materials reclamation and recycling. Stevenage: Warren Springs
Laboratory, Department of Trade and Industry.
Blaine, T. W., Lichtkoppler, F. R., Jones, K. R., & Zondag, R. H. (2005). An assessment
of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling; A comparison of payment card and a referendum approaches. Journal of Environmental Management,
76(1), 15e22.
Bouman, N., Goodwin, J., Jones, P., & Weaver, N. (1998). Sustaining recycling:
identication and application of limiting factors in kerbside recycling areas.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 5, 263e276.
Boyer, T. A. (2006). Talking Trash: Valuing household preferences for garbage and
recycling services bundles using a discrete choice experiment. In 2006 Annual
meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21074, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
Cameron, T. A., & Huppert, D. D. (1987). Efcient estimation methods for Close
Ended contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistic, 69,
269e276.
Chenayah, S., Agamuthu, P., & Takeda, E. (2007). Multi-criteria modelling on recycling of municipal solid waste in Subang Jaya. Malaysian Journal of Science,
26(1), 1e16.
Flinthoff, F. (2002). Household behaviour on solid waste management: a case of
Kathmandu Metropolitan City. In 2002 World Congress of Environmental and
Resource Economists, California, June 24e27.
Frey, B., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1996). The cost of price incentives: an empirical
analysis of motivation crowding-out. American Economic Review, 87, 746e755.
Gamba, R., & Oskamp, S. (1994). Factors inuencing community residents' participation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behaviour,
26, 587e612.
Grieser, M., & Rawlins, B. (1996). Issues in urban and rural Environments: GreenCOM
gender reports. Washington.
Halvorsen, B. (August 2010). Effect of norms and policy incentives on household
recycling: An international comparison. Discussion Papers No. 627. Statistics
Norway, Research Department www.ssb.no.
Hoehn, J. P. (1991). Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy:
theory and methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 289e299.
Hong, S., & Adams, R. A. (1993). An economic analysis of household recycling of
solid wastes: the case of Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 25.
Huhtala, A. (1996). How much do money, inconvenience an polluion matter?
Analysing households' demand for large-scale recycling and incineration.
Journal of Environmental Management, 55, 27e38.
Ibrahim, M., Aliagha, G. U., & Khoo, G. S. (2000). Household recycling program: an
evaluation of its effectiveness. In The National Conference on urban Issues and
Challenges: Developing Solutions for the Cities, Universiti Putra Malaysia; May
8e9.
Jenkins, R. R., Martinez, S. A., Plamer, K., & Podolsky, M. J. (2003). The determinants
of household recycling: a material-specic analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45,
294e318.
Jenkins, R. R., Salvador, A., Martinez, S. A., Palmer, K., & Podolsky, J. (2000). The
determinants of household recycling: A material specic analysis of recycling
program features and unit pricing. Discussion Paper 99-41-REV. Resources for
The Future. Washington D.C.
Kipperberg, G., & Larson, D. M. (2012). Heterogeneous preferences for community
recycling programs. Environmental and Resources Economic, 53(4), 577e604.
Lake, I. R., Bateman, I. J., & Partt, J. P. (1996). Assessing a kerbside recycling scheme:
a quantitative and willingness to pay case study. Journal of Environmental
Management, 46, 239e254.
Lund, H. F. (1992). The McGraw-Hill recycling hand book. McGraw Hill Pub.
Malaysia. (2001). The eight Malaysia plan (2001e2005). Kuala Lumpur: Government
Printed.
Malaysia. (2006). The ninth Malaysia plan (2006e2010). Kuala Lumpur: Government
Printed.
Mattsson, C. H., Berg, P. E. O., & Clarkson, P. A. (2003). The development of systems
for property close collection of recycable: experiences from Sweden and England. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 38, 369e385.
McQuaid, R. W., & Murdoch, A. R. (1996). Recycling policy in areas of low income
and multi-storey housing. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
39(4), 545e562.
Medina, M. (2000). Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 31, 51e69.
255
Sidique, S. F., Lupi, F., & Joshi, S. V. (2010). The effects of behaviour and attitudes on
drop-off recycling activities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 163e170.
Siwar, C. (2008). Solid waste management: recycling, green jobs and challenges in
Malaysia. In ILO Research Conference: Green Jobs for Asia & Pacic, Niigata, Japan,
21e23 April.
Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives and pro-environmental consumer
behaviour. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461e478.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). London:
Pearson Education Co.
Tiller, K. H., Jakus, P. M., & Park, W. M. (1997). Household willingness to pay for
drop-off recycling. Journal of Agricultural & Resources Economics, 22(2),
310e320.
Wilks, L. (1990). A survey of the contingent valuation method. Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Wyposal, W. (1989). Economic incentives improve voluntary efforts. Biocycle,
32e33.
www.sisa.my (update Mac 2009). http://www.sisa.my/cmssite/content.php?
cat207&pageid785&langbm.
Yahaya, N. (2008). Solid waste management in Malaysia: policy, issues & strategies.
In EA-SWMC EU e Asia Solid Waste Management Cycle Conference. 23e28 Oct.
Casuaria Impiana Hotel, Perak.
Yahaya, N. (2012). Solid waste management in Malaysia: The way forward.
Zen, I. S. (2006). Kajian Amalan Kitar Semula Isirumah Di Kuala Lumpur: Ke Arah
pembaikan pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Perbandaran. PhD dissertation. Bangi,
Selangor: Pusat Pengajian Siswazah. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Zen, I. S. (2007). Amalan Kitar Semula Isirumah di Kuala Lumpur. Program Pengurusan
persekitaran. Pusat Pengajian Siswazah. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, ISBN
978-983-2975-96-0.
Zen, I. S., Noor, Z. Z., & Yusof, R. O. (2014). The proles of household recyclers and
non-recyclers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International, 42(April),
83e89.