ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
Electronic Waste Management in California:
Consumer Attitudes Toward Recycling, Advanced Recycling Fees, “Green” Electronics,
and Willingness to Pay for Recycling
By
Hilary Kathleen Nixon
Doctor of Philosophy in Planning, Policy, and Design
University of California, Irvine, 2006
Professor Jean-Daniel Saphores, Chair
Electronic waste (e-waste) management has attracted increasing attention in recent years
from government, business, non-governmental organizations, and consumers. Indeed,
consumer electronics devices (CEDs) contain many toxic materials that can have
detrimental impact on public health and the environment, if improperly disposed. Many
governments outside the U.S., including in Japan and in the European Union, have
enacted legislation to address this new environmental challenge. In the U.S.,
unfortunately, e-waste recycling rates are low, the recycling infrastructure is underdeveloped, and there are currently no federal laws dealing with e-waste recycling.
California has taken a leading role, however. Using a variety of econometric models
(semi-nonparametric extended ordered probit, ordered logit, and rank-ordered logit) and
incorporating both internal and external explanatory variables, I explore e-waste
management in California through four independent, yet interrelated studies.
First, I examine households’ willingness to recycle e-waste at drop-off recycling
facilities. Results highlight the importance of recycling convenience and lead to several
policy recommendations for municipalities to maximize recycling response rates. The
second essay explores public support for advanced recycling fees (ARFs) for CEDs. A
majority of respondents support a 1% ARF. Even greater support could possibly be
achieved through the use of public-private partnerships to address e-waste management.
Long-term approaches to managing electronics should not be restricted to end-of-life
issues, however, so in my third essay, I focus on consumer willingness to pay higher
prices for “green” electronics. Most people only support a 1% premium, but public
education campaigns to increase awareness and inform consumers about the
environmental impacts may increase this. Finally, I explore consumer preferences for ewaste recycling alternatives and estimate willingness to pay for e-waste recycling through
contingent ranking. Curbside recycling is the most preferred alternative, but drop-off
recycling at regional centers is also widely supported. Respondents indicate the least
support for the “Pay As You Throw” option.
As governments continue to search for effective solutions to the e-waste problem,
policies decisions need to be informed by a thorough understanding of consumer attitudes
toward e-waste management. This research highlights this issue and provides policy
recommendations to effectively address this new environmental challenge.