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

Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

An analysis of household acceptance of curbside recycling scheme in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Irina Safitri Zen a, *, Chamhuri Siwar b a

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

b

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 identified 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: irinasafi[email protected], irinasafi[email protected] (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.

post offices, institutions, etc. with scheduled collection carried out by the Alam Flora Sdn Bhd (AFSB). The company is a private consortium 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 Corporation 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 individual 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 identified 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

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 income residential areas in urban areas. Previously, there were thirteen (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 incentives 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 influence 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 landfills. In Malaysia, from a total 291 landfill 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 landfills 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 figure did not capture recycling works being actively conducted by the informal sector. This activity creates a challenge in profiling 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 expected 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 0.8e0.9 kg/capita/day (Osman Saeed, Nasir Hassan, & Mujeebu, 2009). The composition data of recyclable items collected shows the following: 55% by scavengers in landfills, 30% recycling by communities and 15% by educational institutions (Alam Flora, 2004). Though the data indirectly portrays a low quality of recyclable items from the landfill, 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 landfills (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

249

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 identified 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). Interestingly, the door-to-door itinerant buyers that mainly focused on the sales of recycled items have the capacity to provide the convenience 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 significant and substantial positive effect on the percentage of recyclables 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 identification of household's support and acceptance towards 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 differences 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 conceptual 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 preference 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, & Parfitt, 1996) identified socioeconomic characteristics, awareness and attitudes 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) 248e255

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 specific 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 fixed 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 profile 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 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 five family members as a unit of study, the target population identified was 26,125 householders. Using the sample size generation formula from Mendenhall, Ott, and Scheaffer (1996) and to fulfill 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 difficulty 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, difficulties 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). Difficulties also arise if the respondents are not familiar with the scenario services to be valued.

In order to reduce this difficulty, 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 flat 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?

I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255 Table 1 Variable descriptions. Variable

Explanation

Willingness The willingness to pay value for curbside recycle collection at home (Malaysia Ringgit, MYR) Activezone Active recycling zone; Bangsar and Wangsa Maju.

Mandatory

Mandatory recyclable separation

Collect1x

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

Age Wife Educ

Education level of respondent

Chinrec

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

Recimprt Income

Values Numeric (MYR)

1 if active recycling zone (Bangsar and Wangsa Maju have RC, FRC/ BBC, CBOs and NGOs), 0 otherwise (less active recycling zone pr residential area in Taman Tun Dr. Ismail which has one CBOs and MRC) 1 if mandatory recyclable separation, 0 otherwise 1 if once a week recycle collection, 0 otherwise Ordinal, 1(18e38), 2(39e56), 3 (>57) 1 if mother or wife, 0 otherwise (Father and Adult) Ordinal, 1 (Not School), 2 (Primary School), 3 (Lower Certificate of Education, LCE), 4 (Malaysian Certificate of Education, MCE), 5 (Malaysian Higher School Certificate, MHSC), 6 (Diploma), 7 (Undergraduate), 8 (Graduate). 1 if Chinese respondents who are practicing recycling, 0 otherwise Ordinal, 1 (Very Important)e6 (Not Very Important) Ordinal, 1 (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 first 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 acceptance 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 recycling attitudes. The variable deployed in the model tries to figure out the profile 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 first question measured the households' willingness to separate (WTS) the recyclable items as the basic requirements of CRS (Fig. 1a). 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

251

results reflected 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. 1b). 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 additional payment on CRS are stated in Table 2. The result provided the challenge for CRS integration into the existing solid waste management practices in Malaysia that at the same time reflect 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 recycling facilities (Ostrum, 1990). The detailed aspects of private and public community recycling programs has been discussed (Kipperberg and Larson (2012). ‘Private services, making profits’ and ‘Recyclables are saleable’ are the two statements related to potential recycling as an economic activity or the dominant thinking of the economist as stated by Samuelson (1954). These two statements also reflect the potential conflict 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 reflect their strategic behavior (Table 2, No.3). The third question of WTP was put to 188 respondents who supported curbside recycling (Fig. 1c). There are 157 respondents who stated their amount (Fig. 1d). 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 upgraded 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 first 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 respondents 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) 248e255

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)

1. I already support the environment by doing source separation. 2. It should be part of the existing waste collection. 3. No incentives given. 4. Government should take the responsibility. 5. Other reasons stated are ‘Use the existing facilities’, ‘Private service, making profit from recycling activity’, ‘Part of the annual tax’, ‘Recyclables are saleable’ and etc.).

Percentage (%)

47

22

40

18

8 27 103

4 12 46

(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 &

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 separation scenario for CRS proposed in Wangsa Maju and the other four residential areas in KLFT. If our CRS charges results combined with the flat 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 respondents 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 significant at 0.01 level of significance (p ¼ 0.002 < 0.01) (Table 5). The goodness-of-fit test to estimate the log linearity of our multiple regression models showed the adjusted R2 value as 0.163.

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

Means (MYR) annually

Means (MYR) Monthly

Sample (N ¼ 188)

Standard deviation (MYR) annually

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

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

The low adjusted R2 statistic may be due to the various methods of recycling used by the respondents; recycling/buy-back centres, community's recycling, etc. Low adjusted R2 was found in community recycling programs studied by Kipperberg and Larson (2012), WTP for improvement of solid waste service in Kathmandu (Flinthoff, 2002). The estimated coefficients are statistically significant 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 independent 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 five (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) attitudes towards the importance of recycling to the environment. The Chinese respondents variable who performed recycling with the highest significant level at 0.001 showed their support and demand for curbside recycling. It is an improvement from a dropoff 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, recyclers 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 identified 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 recycling has been studied by Muller and Schienberg (1997). The third significant 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 incentives. 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 portrayed 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 individual households (Bruvoll et al., 2002; Morris & Holthausen 1994).

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

e

e

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

253

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

Unstandardized coefficient

b

t

Significance 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 ¼ 0.163 2 Adjusted R 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

0.000 0.088** 0.561 0.548 0.023** 0.094** 0.548 0.001*** 0.010* 0.255

*** Significant at level 0.01 (1%). ** Significant at level 0.1 (10%). * Significant 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, finally 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 activity 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 towards curbside recycling compared to younger age groups (age groups 1 and 2). It is well understood that older age groups found it more difficult to perform drop-off recycling. A study by Boyer (2006) found out that 45þ 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 significant 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 significant 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 influence the recycling program decisions. Their study using

254

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

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 recycling 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 difficulties 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 recycling 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 households' 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 dropoff recycling facilities or a public recycling facilities to a private recycling services at the household level. This effort will accomodate 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 discussion leading to the development of questionnaire and statistical analysis. References Aadland, D., & Caplan, A. J. (1999). Household valuation on curbside recycling. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(6), 781e799. Aadland, D., & Caplan, A. J. (2003). Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(2), 492e502. Afroz, R., & Masud, M. M. (2011). Using a contingent valuation approach for improved SWM facility: evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management, 31, 800e808. Agamuthu, P., Fauziah, S. H., & Kahlil, K. (2009). Evolution of solid waste management in Malaysia: impacts and implications of the solid waste bill, 2007. Journal of Material Cycles Waste Management, 11, 96e103.

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: identification 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). Efficient 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 influencing 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-specific 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 specific 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., & Parfitt, 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.

I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255 Mendenhall, W., Ott, L., & Scheaffer, R. L. (1996). Elementary survey sampling. California: Dexburry Press. Morrissey, A. J., & Browne, J. (2004). Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management. Waste Management, 24(3), 297e308. Mourato, S. (1999). Household demand for improved solid waste management in Malaysia. Paper presented in the Workshop on Economic Valuation of Environmental Resource, organized by EPU and DANCED, Renaissance Palm Garden Hotel, Puchong, May 13e15. Muller, & Schienberg. (1997). Gender and urban waste management. Paper presented at the Gender, Technology and Development Conference, organized by TOOL/ TOOLCONSULT, Amsterdam. Nyborg, K., & Rege, M. (2003). Does public policy crowd out private contributions to public goods? Public Choice, 115(3), 397e418. Octania, P. R. (2005). Household behaviour towards waste recycling in Ampang Jaya and Subang Jaya, Selangor. Master Thesis. Faculty of Environment, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Omran, A., Mahmood, A., Abdul Aziz, H., & Robinson, G. M. (2009). Investigating households attitude towards recycling of solid waste in Malaysia: a case study. International Journal of Environmental Research, 3(2), 275e288. Oskamp, S. (Ed.). (1977). Attitudes and opinions. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Oskamp, S., Rachel, L., Burkhardt, P., Schultz, W., Hurin, S., & Zelezny, L. (1998). Predicting three dimensions of residential curbside recycling: an observational study. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(2), 37e42. Osman Saeed, M., Nasir Hassan, M., & Mujeebu, M. A. (2009). Assessment of municipal solid waste generated and recyclable material's potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management, 29(2009), 2209e2213. Othman, J. (2002). Household preferences for solid waste management in Malaysia. EEPSEA Research Report 2002eRR8. Sakawi, Z. (2011). Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: solution for sustainable waste management. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6(1), 29e38.

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 & Pacific, 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? cat¼207&pageid¼785&lang¼bm. 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 profiles of household recyclers and non-recyclers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International, 42(April), 83e89.