TY - JOUR
T1 - The cost of reducing municipal solid waste
AU - Palmer, Karen
AU - Sigman, Hilary
AU - Walls, Margaret
N1 - Funding Information:
1This research was funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation under a cooperative agreement with Resources for the Future R821821-01). Sigman conducted part of her work on this project while a Gilbert White Fellow at Resources for the Future. She is also grateful for financial support for an earlier version of this research from the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The authors appreciate the excellent research assistance of Ken Harrison, Steve Puller, and Richard Akresh and the helpful comments of Dallas Burtraw, Di Jin, Eduardo Ley, Clare Lindsay, Debbie Nestor, Michael Podolsky, Brett Van Akkeren, an anonymous referee, and especially Don Fullerton.
PY - 1997/6
Y1 - 1997/6
N2 - This paper studies three price-based policies for solid waste reduction: (i) deposit/refunds; (ii) advance disposal fees; and (iii) recycling subsidies. We parameterize a simple model of waste disposal using supply and demand elasticities from previous literature and 1990 prices and quantities of aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and steel. We explore opportunities to reduce these wastes through both recycling and source reduction. The results indicate that the deposit/refund is the least costly of the policies and that a 7.5% reduction of the wastes in the model would have been efficient in 1990.
AB - This paper studies three price-based policies for solid waste reduction: (i) deposit/refunds; (ii) advance disposal fees; and (iii) recycling subsidies. We parameterize a simple model of waste disposal using supply and demand elasticities from previous literature and 1990 prices and quantities of aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and steel. We explore opportunities to reduce these wastes through both recycling and source reduction. The results indicate that the deposit/refund is the least costly of the policies and that a 7.5% reduction of the wastes in the model would have been efficient in 1990.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030992270&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030992270&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1006/jeem.1997.0986
DO - 10.1006/jeem.1997.0986
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0030992270
VL - 33
SP - 128
EP - 150
JO - Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
JF - Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
SN - 0095-0696
IS - 2
ER -