An applicability test of the use of deposit-refund system for managing water-sachet litter in Ilorin, Nigeria
- Author(s)
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.09(4).2018.03
-
Article InfoVolume 9 2018, Issue #4, pp. 22-43
- Cited by
- 1691 Views
-
181 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This study used both quasi-experiment and contingent valuation survey to explore the applicability of deposit-refund system (DRS) to water-sachet litter management in Nigeria. In the experiment, a DRS was established to incentivize the participants to return emptied sachets of water. A contingent valuation survey of 454 sachet-water consumers selected using quasi-systematic sampling technique was conducted. Experimental results showed that the number of sachets returned by the experimental group – those subjected to DRS – was significantly greater than that of the comparison group – those not subjected to DRS. Logit regression results showed that refund size increased the odds of returning sachets by 42.0%. Increasing the redemption time decreased the odds of turning in sachets by about 16.0%. A one-minute increase in the time spent on redemption would result in about 2.4% decrease in the probability that participants would comply. Income decreased the odds of compliance by about 31.0%, while age reduced the odds of compliance by about 2.2%. These results imply that the DRS reduced water-sachet littering in the study area, and that income, refund amount, redemption time, age and perceived effectiveness of DRS influenced consumers’ compliance with DRS. Hence, an appropriate motivating DRS would reduce litter and its attendant problems, such as hygiene, plastic pollution, flooding, aesthetic loss, non-naturally degradable toxic compounds, degradation of natural habitat ant its endangered species. The government should, therefore, implement a DRS and set up recycling plants, or encourage private recycling firms, in order to accommodate used sachets that would end up piling up.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)H10, H12, H23
-
References44
-
Tables8
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the mechanics of the deposit-refund system
-
- Table 1. Definition and measurement of variables
- Table 2. Demographic distribution of the participants
- Table 3. Number of sachets purchased and returned by the comparison group
- Table 4. Number of sachets purchased and returned by the experimental group
- Table 5. Number of sachets turned in during the recycling subsidy experiment
- Table 6. Summary statistics for logit regression variables
- Table 7. Estimated binary logit model results
- Table 1A. Correlation matrix for the explanatory variables
-
- Aderogba, K. A. (2012). Qualitative studies of recent floods and sustainable growth and development of cities and towns in Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 1(3), 1-25.
- Akunyili, D. N. (2003). The role of “pure water” and bottled water manufacturers in Nigeria. In Towards the millennium development goals - Actions for water and environmental sanitation: proceedings of the 29th WEDC International Conference, Abuja, Nigeria, 22-26 September 2003 (pp. 85-88). U.K.: Loughborough University.
- Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leaner, E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register Department of Commerce, 58(10), 4602-4614.
- Ashenmiller, B. (2011). The effect of bottle laws on income: new empirical results. American Economic Review, 101(3), 60-64.
- Aziegbe, F. I. (2007). Seasonality and environmental impact status of polyethylene (Cellophane) generation and disposal in Benin city, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 22(2), 141-147.
- Babatunde, M. A., & Biala, M. I. (2010). Externality effects of sachet water consumption and the choice of policy instruments in Nigeria: evidence from Kwara State. Journal of Economics, 1(2), 113-131.
- Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
- Carson, R. T., & Hanemann, W. M. (2005). Contingent valuation. Handbook of environmental economics: Valuing Environmental Changes, 2, 821-936.
- De Groot, J. I. M., Abrahamse, W., & Jones, K. (2013). Persuasive normative messages: the influence of injunctive and personal norm on using free plastic bags. Sustainability, 5, 1829-1844.
- Dixon, J. A. (2008). Environmental valuation; challenges and practices: a personal view. Paper presented at Conference on economics and conservation in the tropics: a strategic dialogue.
- Dobbs, I. M. (1991). Litter and waste management: Disposal taxes versus user chargers. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 24(1), 221-227.
- Felder, M., & Morawski, C. (2003). Evaluating the relationship between refund values and beverage container recovery. A Paper Prepared for Beverage Container Management board by CM Consulting.
- Fletcher, D., Hogg, D., Eye, M., Elliott, T., & Bendali, L. (2012). Examining the cost of introducing a deposit refund system in Spain (Final Report for Retorna). U.K.: Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd.
- Folorunsho, R., & Awosika, L. (2001). Flood mitigation in Lagos, Nigeria through wise management of solid waste: A case of Ikoyi and Victoria Islands. Paper Presented at the UNESCO-CSI Workshop.
- Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
- Goldsby, T. J. (1998). Consumer recycling programs: The marketing and logistics implications (Unpublished Dissertation). Michigan State University.
- Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B (2006) Research method for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
- Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
- Gupt, Y. (2012). Is the deposit-refund system for lead batteries in Delhi and the national capital region effective? (SANDEE Working Papers No. 68-12).
- Hati, S. S., & Dimari, G. A. (2010). Polyethylene plastics (PEP): Considerations for its classification as a New type of persistent organic pollutants (POPS) from a developing country’s perspective. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 11(1), 592-597.
- He, H. (2010). Environmental and behavioral economics: Applications to China (Ph.D. Thesis). Sweden: University of Gothenburg.
- Idiata, D. J. (2012). The environmental threat of sachet water package (waste) on agricultural land. Paper presented at International Conference on Agriculture, Chemical and Environmental Sciences.
- Kahn, A. E. (1966). The tyranny of small decisions: Market failures, imperfections, and the limit of economics. Kyklos, 19(1), 23-47.
- 24. Kajogbola, D. O. (1998). Small scale enterprises and environment: A case study of packaged water industry in Ibadan region. Nigeria Environmental Study Action Team.
- Mitchel, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using survey to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. U.S.A.: Resources for the Future.
- National Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Annual Abstract of Statistics.
- Nkwocha, E. E., Egejuru, R. O., Pat-Mbano, E. C., & Njoku-Tony, R. F. (2011). Proximity of municipal waste dumpsites to residential neighbourhoods and rate of hospitalization for malaria. International Journal of Advanced Biotechnological Research, 2(1), 159-167.
- Nwachukwu, S., Obidi, O., & Odocha, C. (2010). Occurrence and recalcitrance of polyethylene bag waste in Nigeria soils. African Journal of Biotechnology, 9(37), 6096-6104.
- Onyenechere, E. C. (2011). The informal sector and the environment in Nigerian towns: What we know and what we still need to know. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 3(1), 61-69.
- Patrick, A. O., Obasi, L. O., Okoroigwe, D. S., & Dibia, N. O. (2013). From plastic bag wastes to wealth: a case study of Abia State University, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Management and Safety, 4(1), 35-39.
- Porter, R. C. (1983). Michigan’s experience with mandatory deposits on beverage containers. Land Economics, 59(2), 177-194.
- Reeson, A. F., & Tisdell, J. (2008). Institutions, motivations, and public goods: An experimental test of motivational crowding. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 68, 272-281.
- Reid, I. (2011). Beverage container recycling: A survey of Albertans (42 p.). Final Report.
- Selby, H. (2012). Indiscriminate littering contributes to flood disasters. The Chronicle.
- Taylor, B., Sinha, G., & Ghoshal, T. (2009). Research methodology: A guide for researchers in Management & Social Sciences. New Delhi: PHI Learning.
- USEPA National Centre for Environmental Economics. The United States experience with economic incentives for protecting the environment (2001).
- Abell (2012). Uncapping the Pros and Cons of a Bottle Deposit Program. The Abell Report, 25(2), 1-12.
- Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What Makes a Recycler? A Comparison of Recyclers and Non-Recyclers. Environment and Behaviour, 22, 55-73.
- Viscusi, W. K., Huber, J., Bell, J., & Cecot, C. (2009). Discontinuous behavioural responses to recycling laws and plastic water bottle deposits. (NBER Working Paper No. 15585).
- Viscusi, W., Huber, J., & Bell, J. (2011). Promoting recycling: private values, social norms, and economic incentives. American Economic Review, 101(3), 65-70.
- Walls, M. (2011). Deposit-refund systems in practice and theory. In Resources for the Future.
- Wooldrige, J. M. (2006). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (3rd ed.). Mason: Thomson South-Western.
- Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
- Yeasmin, S., & Rahman, K. F. (2012). Triangulation research method as the tool of social science research. BUP Journal, 1(1), 154-163.
-
Synthesizing the economist’s and the psychologist’s approaches to litter control for sustainable waste management
Musa Ilias Biala
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.10(1).2019.01
Environmental Economics Volume 10, 2019 Issue #1 pp. 1-11 Views: 1888 Downloads: 170 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯLittering has been a subject of inquiry by environmental economists, as well as social and environmental psychologists, each using a different theoretical and analytical toolkit. While economists see littering as an externality problem or a market failure, psychologists see it as a social behavior problem. Regardless of the discipline, both theories have a common goal: What factors affect littering behavior and how can it be curtailed? This paper, therefore, adopts theory-triangulation approach to review theories concerning littering. It concisely reviews the economist’s and the psychologist’s approaches to littering and their respective solutions. The finding from this review is that the psychological approaches to litter control are narrower in coverage than the economic approaches in that the former are applicable to smaller environmental settings or areas, such as school premises, office places, factories, and market places, as opposed to such lager settings as cities, states or the country at large to which economic instruments are usually applied. Despite the plethora of research extolling the virtues of economic approaches to litter control, their real-world application has not caught on. One of the factors responsible for this is the implementation costs and difficulty involved. The economic instruments are costlier than the psychological instruments, because the former cover a larger setting and entail a lot of bureaucracies. To better understand littering and find appropriate solutions to it, studies on littering should consider looking at littering holistically from this interdisciplinary perspective. Both the economist’s and the psychologist’s approaches to litter control should be synthesized for sustainable waste management. However, policymakers need to consider the available financial resources and the multifarious views of litter in policies relating to litter. An option for policymakers is to minimize those costs associated with implementing economic instruments.
