Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8
Habitat International 47 (2015) 248 e 255 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Habitat International journal

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint An analysis of household acceptance of curbside recycling

An analysis of household acceptance of curbside recycling scheme in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Irina Sa tri Zen a , * , Chamhuri Siwar b

a Centre for Innovative Planning and Development (CIPD), Facuty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malay sia b Institute for Environment and Sustainable Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (National University of Malaysia), 43600 UKM Ba ngi, Selangor, Malaysia

of Malaysia), 43600 UKM Ba ngi, Selangor, Malaysia article info Article history: Available online 24 February

article info

Article history:

Available online 24 February 2015

Keywords:

Curbside recycling Willingness to pay (WTP) Contingent valuation method (CVM) Recycling facilities Source separation Solid waste management

abstract

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 drop- off recycling facilities are limited. The analysis identi ed the socio-economic factors that affect the re- spondents' 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.

Introduction

Household recycling activity in Malaysia is still sporadic and concentrated mainly in the urban and sub-urban areas. It is sup- ported 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, gov- ernment 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: irinasa tri@utm.my, irinasa tri@gmail.com (I.S. Zen), csiwar@ ukm.my (C. Siwar).

0197-3975/ © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

post of ces, institutions, etc. with scheduled collection carried out by the Alam Flora Sdn Bhd (AFSB). The company is a private con- sortium of solid waste management covering three states, KLFT, Selangor and Perak States. The ratio of recycle bins to population in KLFT is 1:22,247 per inhabitant ( Zen, 2006 ). The number of recycle bins for KLFT were increased to 100 for KLFT and 2,470 for the other parts of the country in 2011 (SWM and Public Cleansing Corpora- tion 2011) ( www.sisa.my2012 ). The inadequacy of the recycle bins has been reported in several studies ( Chenayah, Agamuthu, & Takeda, 2007; Ibrahim, Aliagha, & Khoo, 2000; Octania, 2005; Zen, 2006 ). The method known as drop-off recycling is the least convenient recycling method ( Lund, 1992 ) that largely depends on household participation ( Sidique, Lupi, & Joshi, 2010 ). Nevertheless, recycling activity requires indi- vidual investment of time, space, money and effort beside their knowledge and attitude towards recycling. Personal barriers in performing recycling activity include not enough time , lack of space to store the recyclables' or external factors such as too few drop-off sites' and inconvenient recycling locations' have been identi ed in several studies ( Chenayah et al., 2007; Ibrahim et al., 2000; Octania, 2005; Zen, 2006; Zen, Noor, & Yusof, 2014 ).

I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255

249

Complementing the drop-off recycling facilities, the nationwide campaign provides recycling centres (RC) or buy back centers (BBC) with monetary incentives for recyclable items. The RC/BBC are mostly located at selected densely populated and middle-high in- come residential areas in urban areas. Previously, there were thir- teen (13) RC/BBC that consisted of six permanent RC/BBC and seven mobile RC/BBC under the AFSB concession area (Alam Flora, 2009). Some of the mobile RC/BBC had served the recycling activity by

community-based organizations (CBO's), schools, institutions and non-government organizations (NGO's) as an additional source of income to fund their social activities ( Zen, 2006, 2007 ). Presently, there are 599 communities RC/BBC for the whole states ( www.sisa.my2012 ). Though various recycling facilities are provided, household's response to the various stimuli of pre-environmental behavioral change is complex. Some research has reported the role of in- centives to induce environmentally responsible behavior ( Stern, 1999; Wyposal, 1989 ). In contrast, other research claims that incentive-based approach creates the challenge of forming intrinsic motives of pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling behavior ( Frey & Oberholzer-Gee, 1996 ). This study covers the in uence of attitude on CRS in order to gain a better understanding of the acceptance or otherwise of the new proposed household recycling facilities. Recycling is one of the important methods of diverting the increasing amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW) that cannot be fully deposited in the available land lls. In Malaysia, from a total

291 land ll sites in April 2007 ( Yahaya, 2008 ), about 80% of them

reached their maximum capacity by 2010 ( Alam Flora, 2008 ) and

112 (38.5%) were not in operation with only 10 sanitary land lls

being in operation ( Yahaya, 2008 ). To achieve a developed country status by 2020, recycling target of Malaysia was set at 22% ( Malaysia, 2006 ). However, the recycling rate recorded in KLFT is only 1% (UNEP 2004) and 5% at the national level ( Agamuthu, Fauziah, & Kahlil, 2009; Agamuthu, Fauziah, & Khidzir, 2009; Malaysia, 2006 ). However, this gure did not capture recycling works being actively conducted by the informal sector. This activity creates a challenge in pro ling the country's SWM. The Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act 2007 (Act 672) came into force in 2012 and stated the requirement of source separation by households ( Yahaya, 2012 ). Even though waste separation is not yet enforced, the main intention of increasing household recycling participation becomes urgent due to the annual increase in waste generation. It was estimated that solid waste generation in Malaysia is more than 25,800 tonnes/day and it will reach 30,000 tonnes/day by 2020 (Yusuf, 2013). In 2005, solid waste generation in KLFT was 3478 tonnes/day and is ex- pected to rise to 3200 tonnes/day in 2017 ( Agamuthu, Fauziah, Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007). The per capita solid waste generation in KLFT alone is about 1.62 kg/capita/day, with the national average being 0.8 e 0.9 kg/capita/day ( Osman Saeed, Nasir Hassan, & Mujeebu, 2009 ). The composition data of recyclable items collected shows the following: 55% by scavengers in land lls, 30% recycling by com- munities and 15% by educational institutions ( Alam Flora, 2004 ). Though the data indirectly portrays a low quality of recyclable items from the land ll, it indicates domination of the informal sector in Malaysia recycling scenario. The informal sector recycling practices in Malaysia are from door-to-door itinerant recycling buyers, waste collection workers doing segregation during their works and scavenging activity in land lls ( Siwar, 2008 ). Informal sector recycling is common in many developing countries and play an important role in their waste management scenario ( Medina, 2000 ; Ojeda-Benitez et al., 2002). A study of Zen (2007) in KLFT found out that 31% of households have favorable

attitudes towards door-to-door itinerant buyers compared to 23% favoring drop-off recycling provided by the government. It could be said that informal recycling helps in initiating the development of household recycling practice and creates recycling norms in the society. The preference towards itinerant recycling buyers was probably due to monetary incentives received and convenience as one of the factors affecting recycling behavior from various studies ( Medina, 2000 ; Ojeda-Benitez et al., 2002; Stern, 1999; Wysopal 1989 ). Other studies on household recycling conducted in KLFT iden- ti ed 19% of households separating recyclable items into separate plastic bags aside their garbage bins on voluntary basis ( Zen, 2007). Another study showed the need of recycling facilities at the household level in order to encourage them to participate in recycling and minimize their time (Kuo & Perrings, 2010). Inter- estingly, the door-to-door itinerant buyers that mainly focused on the sales of recycled items have the capacity to provide the con- venience household recycling facility. Curbside recycling has been known as one of the effective ways

to reduce household cost of recycling by reducing inconvenience in

recycling and it consumes less time ( Aadland & Caplan, 1999;

Jenkins, Salvador, Martinez, Palmer, & Podolsky, 2000 ). Compared

to drop-off recycling, accessibility to curbside recycling has signif-

icant and substantial positive effect on the percentage of re- cyclables collected ( Bardos et al., 1990; Jenkins et al., 2000 ). A

combination of several recycling methods or facilities such as curbside recycling, economic incentives and drop-off recycling has

a positive effect on household recycling participation ( Hong &

Adams, 1993; Jenkins et al., 2000; Tiller, Jakus, & Park, 1997 ). Considering the various recycling facilities and practices in this study area, the proposed CRS conducted will explore the adaptation

of CRS into the existing solid waste management system.

The identi cation of household's support and acceptance to- wards the CRS is important ( Aadland & Caplan, 2003 ). It is an effort to reduce misjudgments that led to poor facilities/scheme design and performance (Altaf & Hughes, 1994) with the additional high operational cost ( Jenkins, Martinez, Plamer, & Podolsky, 2003 ). CRS design varies in terms of frequencies of collection, mandatory versus voluntary separation, whether it is part of the waste

collection system, type of collection containers of recycle bin and type of recycled material collected ( Bouman, Goodwin, Jones, & Weaver, 1998 ). CRS also varies on the community level due to dif- ferences in the socioeconomic demography background (Guagnano

et al., 1995; Mattsson, Berk, & Clarkson, 2003 ). Preference of CRS is

found in landed or single house building compared to high rise housing areas ( McQuaid & Murdoch, 1996 ). The contingent valuation (CV) method was applied to capture the passive use values of CRS as an essential aspect in the con- ceptual framework of CRS. The passive use values of CRS involved the environmental values embedded in the goods offered (Carson, 2012). The approach that has direct elicitation of consumer pref- erence and willingness to pay (WTP) has emerged as one of the approaches to address this shortcoming (Carson, 2012; Mitchell & Carson, 1989). Several studies on the WTP of CRS ( Aadland & Caplan, 1999, 2003; Blaine, Lichtkoppler, Jones, & Zondag, 2005; Huhtala, 1996; Jenkins et al., 2000; Lake, Bateman, & Par tt, 1996 ) identi ed socioeconomic characteristics, awareness and at- titudes of households as contributors to the WTP. Other studies recognized the elderly person's willingness to pay for curbside recycling ( Boyer, 2006 ). CV studies conducted on solid waste and recycling services are limited in Malaysia. Previous studies ( Afroz & Masud, 2011 ; Jamal, 2000; Mourato, 1999 ) were inconclusive with regards to solid waste and recycling services. A study by Jamal (2000) on the acceptance of recycling facilities in Kajang area, Selangor State

250

I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248 e255

found out that households put a high value in solid waste man- agement 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 speci c 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 house- holds 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 pro le 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 15 e 39 age bracket, 46%, 27% of the residents, were between 0 and 14 years old, 23% were 40 e 64 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 ¼ 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 identi ed was 26,125 householders. Using the sample size gener- ation formula from Mendenhall, Ott, and Scheaffer (1996) and to ful ll 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 dif culty in interviewing the head of the family. Face-to- face 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, dif culties 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 ). Dif culties also arise if the re- spondents are not familiar with the scenario services to be valued.

In order to reduce this dif culty, the CRS proposed in the ques- tionnaire 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 conve- nience, 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 sur- veys 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 recy- clable items once a week at home with a specially designated recycle bin provided for each house, will you separate your recy- clable 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?

I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255

251

Table 1

Variable descriptions.

Variable

Explanation

Values

Willingness The willingness to pay value for curbside recycle collection at home (Malaysia Ringgit, MYR)

Numeric (MYR)

Activezone

Active recycling zone; Bangsar and Wangsa Maju.

if active recycling zone (Bangsar and Wangsa Maju have RC, FRC/

1

 

BBC, CBOs and NGOs), 0 otherwise (less active recycling zone pr residential area in Taman Tun Dr. Ismail which has one CBOs and MRC)

Mandatory

Mandatory recyclable

if mandatory recyclable separation,

1

separation

 

0

otherwise

Collect1x

Once a week of recycled collection Age of respondent (Three age group in years) Mother/Wife

1

if once a week recycle collection,

0

otherwise

Age

Ordinal, 1(18 e 38), 2(39 e 56), 3

(

> 57)

Wife

1 if mother or wife,

 

0

otherwise (Father and Adult)

Educ

Education level of respondent

Ordinal, 1 (Not School), 2 (Primary

School), 3 (Lower Certi cate of

 

Education, LCE), 4 (Malaysian Certi cate of Education, MCE), 5 (Malaysian Higher School Certi cate, MHSC), 6 (Diploma),

7 (Undergraduate), 8 (Graduate).

Chinrec

Chinese respondents who recycle. Respondents' attitude that recycling is important Respondent's monthly income (RM/month)

1 if Chinese respondents who are

Recimprt

practicing recycling, 0 otherwise Ordinal, 1 (Very Important) e 6 (Not

Income

Very Important) Ordinal, 1 ( < RM580), 2 (RM580- 1500), 3 (RM1501-2500), 4 (RM

2501-3500),

5 (RM3501-4500), 6 (RM4501-

5500),

7 (RM5501-6500), 8 (RM6501-

7500),

9 (RM7501-8500), 10 (RM8501-

9500), 11 ( > 9501)

Answer : RM

(per annum).

In general, the analysis of the study was conducted by using two major statistical analytical approaches: i. Descriptive/exploratory analysis, and ii. Advanced statistical analysis. The rst one was used to identify and explore the various reasons of non-supporters and mean amount of WTP in order to analyze the respondent's accep- tance and adaptability of CRS. The second one will use the advanced statistical analysis for the log-linear regression model of WTP for CRS. The list of variables used in the model are listed in Table 1. The variables include the availability of public recycling facility in the three residential study areas, the socioeconomic status and recy- cling attitudes. The variable deployed in the model tries to gure out the pro le for households who have stated their WTP amount for curbside recycling collection and their willingness to support the program.

Result and discussion

Acceptance of curbside recycling: willingness to separate and willingness to support

The rst question measured the households' willingness to separate (WTS) the recyclable items as the basic requirements of CRS ( Fig. 1 a). Respondents indicated positive response towards recycling by showing that 90% of the respondents ( n ¼ 412) are willing to separate if curbside recycling facilities are provided. The

results re ected good attitudes towards recycling ( Gamba & Oskamp, 1994; Oskamp et al., 1998 ). The second question required gaining respondents' support to pay additional charges for the CRS. The result showed that 41% of the respondents ( n ¼ 188) supported the service and agreed to pay extra charges ( Fig. 1 b). It is a slightly smaller percentage when compared with the 59% of the respondents ( n ¼ 224) that had

contrary opinions and refused to pay additional charges for the curbside recycling scheme. The reasons for refusal to make addi- tional payment on CRS are stated in Table 2 . The result provided the challenge for CRS integration into the existing solid waste man- agement practices in Malaysia that at the same time re ect on how

the society value their recycling practices. Some of the respondents believed that they were doing their

duty to the environment through sorting of the recyclable items

( Table 2 . No.1). Even though they refused to pay, the result showed

households' genuine interest and excitement in recycling. This kind

of feeling has been shown in other studies ( Andreoni, 1990; Nyborg & Rege, 2003 ). These results also challenge the effort to provide

exclusive private services for the convenience of households recy- cling facilities (Ostrum, 1990). The detailed aspects of private and public community recycling programs has been discussed ( Kipperberg and Larson (2012) . Private services, making pro ts and Recyclables are saleable are the two statements related to potential recycling as an eco-

nomic activity or the dominant thinking of the economist as stated by Samuelson (1954). These two statements also re ect the po- tential con ict of the existing norms developed by the current recycling practices in the society known as crowding-out effect ( Halvorsen, 2010 ). The statement It should be part of the existing waste collection Kipperberg and Larson (2012) ’’ might show the

respondent level of understanding that recycle material is part of a solid waste material or may also re ect their strategic behavior

( Table 2 , No.3).

The third question of WTP was put to 188 respondents who supported curbside recycling ( Fig. 1 c). There are 157 respondents who stated their amount ( Fig. 1 d). On the average, the maximum WTP amount stated by respondents as the additional amount of the annual assessment household tax is MYR88.80/year (US$29.60) or MYR7.40/month (US$2.47) ( Table 3 ). It is a payment for an upgra- ded recycling service from public drop-off recycling facilities to curbside household weekly recycling collection with recycle bins provided at the household level. The amount is close to the solid waste collection of MYR10/month ( Sakawi, 2011 ). The rst CV study to estimate the WTP for solid waste collection in Malaysia found a monthly mean value of MYR16 (US$5.33) per household ( Mourato, 1999 ). This result indicated the respondents' effort to relate the proposed curbside recycling collection with the existing monthly waste collection charge. Though the open ended approach applied in this study provided a wide range of WTP values from MYR2.00 (US$0.63) to MYR600.00 (US$158.31), there is the need to gather the information from the demand side of the initial study conducted. This approach is known as a method with high-end anchoring bias ( Aadland & Caplan, 1999 ). Interval approach was applied to reduce the chance of over-estimating the value of curbside recycling. High amount of WTP for curbside recyling has affect by the income level but small amount of cursbide recycling has found in study by Aadland and Caplan (2003) . The calculations further relate the curbside recycling charges with respondent's income. The average monthly income of re- spondents in this area was MYR5700.00 and waste collection charge granted from the annual household assessment tax was MYR10.00 (US$3.33) per household per month. The resulting average of WTP for the three residential areas was MYR7.40

252

I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248 e255

Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248 e 255 Fig. 1. The framework of
Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248 e 255 Fig. 1. The framework of
Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248 e 255 Fig. 1. The framework of
Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248 e 255 Fig. 1. The framework of
Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248 e 255 Fig. 1. The framework of

Fig. 1. The framework of the acceptance of CRS.

Table 2 Reasons for non-support of Curbside Recycling Scheme ( n ¼ 224).

List of reasons

Frequency ( n ¼ 224)

Percentage (%)

1. I already support the environment by doing source separation.

47

22

2. It should be part of the existing waste collection.

40

18

3. No incentives given.

8

4

4. Government should take the responsibility. 27

12

5. Other reasons stated are Use the existing facilities , Private service, making pro t from

103

46

recycling activity , Part of the annual tax , Recyclables are saleable and etc.).

(US$2.47). The addition of waste collection charge to the average WTP of curbside recycling totaled MYR17.40. That amount is 0.3% of the average income in the respective area. The result is very low compared to 1.7% in a similar study by Afroz and Masud (2011) in selected residential areas in Kuala Lumpur. The highest monthly CRS charges as separate charges to the existing waste collection system is depicted in TTDI area which is MYR 8.67 (US$2.89) ( Table 3 ). It is followed by Wangsa Maju MYR 7.12 (US$2.37) and Bangsar MYR5.92 (US$1.97). The monthly rate charges for CRS as a single entity was reported at US$2.05 per month in a WTP study for CRS in the United States ( Cameron &

Table 3 Mean amount of WTP for curbside recycling (n ¼ 188).

Huppert, 1987 ). This was found to be MYR 20 (US$6.67) in a WTP study where CRS charges is part of the waste collection charges ( Afroz & Masud, 2011 ). The study required mandatory source sep- aration scenario for CRS proposed in Wangsa Maju and the other

four residential areas in KLFT. If our CRS charges results combined with the at rate charges of the existing solid waste service, MYR10,

the CRS charges ranged from MYR 15.92 to MYR 18.67. An earlier CV study conducted in the Kajang residential area, Selangor State and Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia found out that the re- spondents were not willing to pay extra for recycling facilities (Jamal, 2000). The minimum amount of household WTP annually was MYR2.00 (US$0.67) and the maximum amount was MYR600.00 (US$200.00). The most frequent choice for WTP was pegged at MYR120.00 (US & 40.00) per year or MYR10.00 (US$3.33) per month.

The multiple log-linear regression of WTP curbside recycling

The descriptive statistics for variables used in this study are shown in Table 4 . The model of log linear regression that estimated the value of household's WTP for curbside recycling collection is statistically signi cant at 0.01 level of signi cance (p ¼ 0.002 < 0.01) ( Table 5 ). The goodness-of- t test to estimate the log linearity of our multiple regression models showed the adjusted R 2 value as 0.163.

Research

Means (MYR)

Means (MYR)

Sample ( N ¼ 188)

Standard deviation (MYR) annually

Median (MYR)

Min (MYR)

Max (MYR)

zone area

annually

Monthly

annually

annually

annually

Bangsar

70.98

5.92

55

81.54

50.00

2.00

360.00

Wangsa Maju

85.46

7.12

60

90.40

60.00

2.00

400.00

TTDI

104.98

8.67

73

108.22

60.00

5.00

600.00

Average

88.80

7.40

e

95.95

e

ee

I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255

253

The low adjusted R 2 statistic may be due to the various methods of recycling used by the respondents; recycling/buy-back centres, community's recycling, etc. Low adjusted R 2 was found in com- munity recycling programs studied by Kipperberg and Larson (2012) , WTP for improvement of solid waste service in Kath- mandu ( Flinthoff, 2002 ). The estimated coef cients are statistically signi cant at 0.1, 0.5 and 0.01 levels. The conditional index value was used to measure the multi-colinearity purposely to measure the sameness of inde- pendent variable measure and the dependent variable with defying the impact ( Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001 ). Conditional index showed the value of 16.852 which is less than 20, the standard value of no multi-collinearity among independent variables. About 16.3% variance of dependent variable was explained by ve (5) independent socio-economic and demographic variables:

(i) Chinese group respondents who practice recycling, (ii) older age group, (iii) active recycling area, (iv) adult and father, and (v) atti- tudes towards the importance of recycling to the environment. The Chinese respondents variable who performed recycling with the highest signi cant level at 0.001 showed their support and demand for curbside recycling. It is an improvement from a drop- off recycling method that might have a combination of altruistic (saving the environment) and egoistic factor (convenient recycling facilities). A study by Ewing (2001) shows that three normative factors (the expectations of household members, friends and neighbors), altruistic factor (that recycling helps protect the environment), and egoistic factor (that recycling is inconvenient) appear similar to households' participation in curbside recycling. Conversely, re- cyclers who does not have altruistic factors were found to be willing to pay for curbside recycling service in a study by Aadland and Caplan (1999) . The study identi ed complex issues surrounding the WTP for curbside recycling. Father or husband and adult tend to support these facilities compared to a wife or mother. It is because father/husband and adults are among the group that spends more time and effort in recycling ( Grieser & Rawlins, 1996 ). Curbside recycling will reduce time spent in recycling. The gender difference in solid waste recy- cling has been studied by Muller and Schienberg (1997) . The third signi cant variable showed the demand of WTP for curbside recycling services in the active recycling residential area; Bangsar and Wangsa Maju. These have various drop off recycling facilities such as recycle bins and recycle centers that offer in- centives. The Bangsar area is known to have an active community recycling collection arrangement that gives economic incentives to the resident associations and other communities. This study por- trayed the situational factors of convenience in curbside recycling dominating the altruism factors gained from doing community recycling and the economic incentives. The challenge is still the need for more time and effort spent at source separation by indi- vidual households (Bruvoll et al., 2002; Morris & Holthausen 1994).

Table 4

Descriptive statistics.

Variable

Means

Standard deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Log willingness

0.30

0.18

0.16

1.44

Activezone

e

e

0

1

Mandatory

e

e

0

1

Collect1x

e

e

0

1

Age

1.60

0.66

1

3

Wife

e

e

0

1

Educ

5.43

1.63

1

8

Chinrec

e

e

0

1

Recimprt

3.00

1.70

1

6

Income

4976.61

2740.47

1

11

Table 5 Estimation for independent and dependent variable of Ordinary Least Square Model.

Model

Unstandardized coef cient

t

Signi cance levels

b

Standard error

Constant

0.322

0.075

4.304

0.000

Activezone

0.049

0.029

1.718

0.088**

Mandatory

0.016

0.027

0.583

0.561

Collect1x

0.018

0.027

0.602

0.548

Age

0.048

0.021

2.298

0.023**

Wife

0.053

0.032

1.687

0.094**

Educ

0.061

0.010

0.603

0.548

Chinrec

0.136

0.041

3.283

0.001***

Recimprt

0.012

0.008

1.656

0.010*

Income

0.007

0.006

1.143

0.255

R 2 ¼ 0.163 Adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.112 Error estimation standardization ¼ 0.16 Average dependent variable ¼ 0.30 F-value ¼ 3.187 Durbin Watson ¼ 1.621 Conditional index ¼ 16.852 Dependent variable (Y) ¼ log willingness to pay

*** Signi cant at level 0.01 (1%). ** Signi cant at level 0.1 (10%). * Signi cant at level 0.5 (5%). Note: Although 460 respondents were surveyed, about 188 respondents only answered for the willingness to pay. However, due to the individuals failing to answer at least one of the dependent variable, nally only 157 respondents were used in this study ( Fig. 1 ). See Table 2 for detailed description of the variables.

The results showed the household preferences to the curbside recycling compared to the current practices. The incentives offered by RBBC and community recycling ac- tivity may not be perceived as sustainable facilities. It can be said that the situational factors of convenience offered in this study might contribute to WTP for curbside recycling as it was found that situational factor might override pro-environmental attitude as a precursor for pro-environmental behavior ( Oskamp, 1977 ). The older age group (age group 3) portrayed positive sign to- wards curbside recycling compared to younger age groups (age groups 1 and 2). It is well understood that older age groups found it more dif cult to perform drop-off recycling. A study by Boyer (2006) found out that 45 þ year olds were the most willing to pay for the weekly curbside service at $9.16/month compared to the younger age group. The socioeconomic variables such as income and education were not signi cant to support the curbside recycling service in our study and have been corroborated in a study by Lake et al. (1996) . In contrast, household income positively affects household's WTP for drop-off recycling in rural areas, but not on suburban areas ( Tiller et al., 1997 ). The variable of mandatory source separation was not signi cant in this study as was found in a study by Afroz and Masud (2011) . Perceived recycling as a burdensome activity added to the current public recycling activity that requires bring-in-system as found in a study by Zen (2007) might affect this result. The result of the study showed the household's preference for the improvement of current recycling facility. It showed the inconvenient aspect of household recycling practice and drop-off recycling facility, recycle bins and recycle buy back center (RBBC). Though, incentive is given in RBBC, it can be argued that small monetary incentives may not be enough to sustain recycling participation in the long term. Furthermore, household curbside recycling needs a knowledge-based strategy to continuously educate the households ( Bouman et al., 1998 ). The similar study conducted by Blaine et al. (2005) in United State has potential for policy implication in cite the CVM results to in uence the recycling program decisions. Their study using

254

I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248 e255

payment card as different forms of CVM method which offer more thorough of socio-demographic variables associated with WTP. Our study shows the support towards CRS as an option to be considered to support the current voluntary recycling program. However, further study may opt for different mode of CVM as found in Blaine et al. (2005) to reveal more socio-economic factors involved. The consistent and scheduled recycling collection at the curb is important to reduce the problems related to the household recy- cling such as minimum recycling storage capacity at home, the aesthetics and the potential insects due to the long time spent before collecting the recyclable items. Having easy access to recycling program is an interrelated mediator between socioeconomic factors and recycling practice (Margai, 1997). Poor participation of households in recycling has been reported in several studies ( Chenayah et al., 2007; Octania, 2005; Omran, Mahmood, Abdul Aziz, & Robinson, 2009; Zen, 2006 ). This can be explained by dif culties in accessing public recycling bins. The proposed curbside recycling services at the household level will help in reducing the tension and barriers of households performing recycling. The need for convenient factors at the household level in doing recycling is important to boost the recycling activities to achieve the sustainable waste management ( Agamuthu et al., 2007; Morrissey & Browne, 2004 ).

Conclusion

The proposed curbside recycling to improve the existing recy- cling facilities has been investigated. The services can be an option to the existing recycling scenario in urban area in Malaysia; the informal recycling and community based recycling. Though, the privatization process of SWM in this country affects the house- holds' opinion on the SWM and the CRS proposed, the result of the study shows the potential of CRS applied to encourage recycling activity at the household level. CRS support are from Chinese recyclers, older age group, father and adult and other respondents who have developed 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. This effort will accom- odate the development of recycling norms to the society. Finally, CRS has potential application in the middle-high income residential areas of Bangsar and Wangsa Maju. It provides an option for waste policy maker as a funding mechanism to improve the recycling program in this country.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr Jamal Othman, from National University of Malaysia for his insightful comments during the dis- cussion leading to the development of questionnaire and statistical analysis.

References

15 e 26) .

8 e 9 .

294

e 318 .

I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255

255

32 e 33 .

83 e 89 .