Willingness of Residental Waste
Classification in China——Research on
Punishment and Reward Mechanism
Group 2: Yuhan Xue, Yutong Sun, Yi Wang, Han Li, Yifan Yang, Xiaoyu Li
PART 1
Introduction
Presented by: Yuhan Xue
Garbage Classification
Piles of solid waste on the outskirts of Beijing. /CGTN Photo
A site for trash sorting and collection in Shanghai, May 3, 2019.
/VCG Photo
Theoretical Concepts
1
2
PART 2
Experiment
Design a survey to obtain primary data of
residents' willingness in waste classification
Presented by: Yutong Sun
Survey - internal factors
Survey - external factors
Reward
Punishment
Survey - external factors
Different
wording
Table 1-Variable definition and result orientation
PART 3
Methodology
Presented by: Yi Wang
Methodology
Binary logistic model
Logistic model
• explanatory variable is discrete binary
variable
• better choice if the response decision is
made based on maximization of utility
(Börsch-Supan, 1990)
• widely used for the analysis of problems
with a binary dependent variable
(Gellynck, Jacobsen and Verhelst, 2011;
Wang et al., 2011; Al-Khateeb et al.,
2017)
ln
𝑃𝑖 𝑌𝑖
= 𝛼 + 𝛽𝑋𝑖 + 𝛾𝑍𝑖
1 − 𝑃𝑖 𝑌𝑖
𝑃𝑖 𝑌𝑖 = 1
F 𝑌𝑖 = 1 = ln
=𝛼+
1 − 𝑃𝑖 𝑌𝑖 = 1
𝛽1 𝑥𝑎𝑔𝑒 + 𝛽2 𝑥𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 + 𝛽3 𝑥𝑒𝑑𝑢 + 𝛽4 𝑥𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 +
𝛾1 𝑧𝑁𝐸𝑅 + 𝛾2 𝑧𝑁𝐸𝑃+ 𝛾3 𝑧𝐸𝑅 + 𝛾4 𝑧𝐸𝑃
PART 4
Analysis
Presented by: Han Li & Yifan Yang
Analysis 1
Binary logistic model
• compare economic incentives with
positive refunds and economic incentives
with a fine
• compare non-economic incentives with praise
for good performance and non-economic
incentives with announcement for bad
performance
• if the coefficient is significantly different,
• if the coefficients are much greater than 0
（question 8＞question 9）
• then the framing work effect is very
significant
• non-economic incentive and punishment have
a certain impact on the improvement of waste
classification.
• then the social pressure is very significant
Analysis 2
OPTION 1
Effects
Rewards> Punishment
Rewards
1: Non-economic incentives
with praise for good
performance
OPTION 2
2: Economical incentives with
positive refunds
Punishment
1:Non-economic incentives
with public annoucement for
bad performance
2: Economical incentives with
a fine
Justification
Charateristic assumptions
Limited effects
Willingness VS practice
The effectiveness of managing
waste disposal is expected to
be comparatively more
significant with rewards,
especilly economic rewards.
Result is acquired based on the
education level, financial
conditions, household
responsibilities and level of
government publicity for waste
classification in China.
The function of rewards is
relatively limited to manage
people’s actions due to time
factors and other realistic
factors.
PART 5
Policy Implications &
Limitation
Presented by: Xiaoyu Li
Policy
Short-term
Financial incentives:
The government encourages communities to
contribute some service fees to reward residents
in the community for classifying waste.
Long-term
Regulatory mechanism and non-economic
incentives：
The government announces communities with
low waste classification rates and requires
communities to announce the names of
residents who have not classified their waste in
the community.
Limitation
01
Subjective factors
Perceptions and attitudes towards waste classification
Behaviour
02
High willingness to classify does not necessarily lead to high
classification behaviour.
Preferences
03
86%
High income groups are less affected by financial incentives
References
 Al-Khateeb, A. J. et al. (2017) ‘Factors affecting the sustainability of solid waste management system—the case of
Palestine’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 189(2), pp. 1–12. doi:
10.1007/s10661-017-5810-0.
 Börsch-Supan, A. (1990) ‘On the compatibility of nested logit models with utility maximization’, Journal of Econometrics.
Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V (Journal of Econometrics), 43(3), pp. 373–388. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(90)90126-E.
 Gellynck, X., Jacobsen, R. and Verhelst, P. (2011) ‘Identifying the key factors in increasing recycling and reducing
residual household waste: A case study of the Flemish region of Belgium’, Journal of Environmental Management.
Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd, 92(10), pp. 2683–2690. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.006.
 Johnson, R., Martinez, A., Palmer, K. and Podolsky, J. (2003). 'The Determinants of Household Recycling: A Materialspecific Analysis of Recycling Program Features and Unit Pricing', Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 45 (2), pp.294-318.
 Lansana, F. (1992). 'Distinguishing Potential Recyclers from Non-recyclers: A Basis for Developing Recycling
Strategies', Journal of Environmental Education, 23 (2), pp.16-23.
 Schultz, W., Oskamp, S. and Mainieri, T. (1995). 'Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational
factors', Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15 (2), pp.105-121.
 The Decision Lab (no date) Why do our decisions depend on how options are presented to us? Available at:
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/framing-effect/.
 Tong, Y., Liu, J. and Liu, S. (2020) ‘China is implementing “Garbage Classification” action’, Environmental Pollution,
259, pp. 2019–2020. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113707.
 Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (1990). 'What Makes a Recycler? A Comparison of Recyclers and Nonrecyclers', Environment
and Behavior, 22 (1), pp.55-73.
 Wang, Z. et al. (2011) ‘Willingness and behavior towards e-waste recycling for residents in Beijing city, China’, Journal
of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 19(9–10), pp. 977–984. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.09.016.
THANKS!
Yuhan Xue , Yi Wang , Yutong Sun
Han Li , Yifan Yang , Xiaoyu Li