IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i4p2251-d750726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Household Preferences for Improved Solid Waste Management (SWM) Services: A Randomized Conjoint Analysis in Kathmandu Metropolitan Ward No. 10

Author

Listed:
  • Bohara Bikash

    (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Planning, Dhangadhi 10900, Nepal
    Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima 739-8529, Japan)

  • Masaru Ichihashi

    (Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima 739-8529, Japan
    The IDEC Institute, Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima 739-8529, Japan
    Network for Education and Research on Peace and Sustainability (NERPS), Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima 739-8529, Japan)

Abstract

Solid waste management (SWM) is a severe environmental concern in many developing countries. The rapid pace of urban population growth and economic development worldwide has led to the increasing generation of municipal solid waste. A large amount of solid waste remains uncollected in metropolitan cities daily due to collection inefficiency. Kathmandu in Nepal also faces the same situation. Due to the lack of relevant studies, this study contributes to research based on quantitative evidence from households’ preference to think about the priority of making effective waste management policies. Prior studies have been less concerned with actual households’ preference or tendencies to improve current SWM (although most of them have pointed out existing waste problems such as the increasing presence of garbage and its composition). This study examines which factors have a causal effect on household decisions to choose improved SWM facilities in Kathmandu, Nepal by using a randomized conjoint experiment useful for effectively identifying respondents’ preference for SWM. Data were collected from 400 randomly selected households using paper questionnaires and face-to-face interviews. Since those households answered choice-card selection five times (and for two kinds of types), the observation number totaled 4000. Our results show that attributes such as monthly service charges, intermediate facilities, and temporary garbage collection spots have a significant effect on respondents’ preferences, while most households still tend to prefer current SWM services. The findings will aid SWM planners in developing and implementing an effective SWM policy that takes household preferences into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Bohara Bikash & Masaru Ichihashi, 2022. "Household Preferences for Improved Solid Waste Management (SWM) Services: A Randomized Conjoint Analysis in Kathmandu Metropolitan Ward No. 10," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2251-:d:750726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2251/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2251/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lilia Rodríguez-Tapia & Daniel A. Revollo-Fernández & Jorge A. Morales-Novelo, 2017. "Household’s Perception of Water Quality and Willingness to Pay for Clean Water in Mexico City," Economies, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    3. Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2013. "Solid Waste Management in Nepal: Current Status and Policy Recommendations," ADB Reports RPT135798, Asian Development Bank (ADB), revised 16 Dec 2013.
    4. Pantelitsa Loizia & Irene Voukkali & Georgia Chatziparaskeva & Jose Navarro-Pedreño & Antonis A. Zorpas, 2021. "Measuring the Level of Environmental Performance on Coastal Environment before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study from Cyprus," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-24, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shitu Ibrahim, Abdullahi & Usman Adam, Shehu & Bukar Maina, Yakaka & Talba Jibir, Musa & Ahmadu Tsala, Abbas, 2023. "Solid Waste Management In Maiduguri Metropolis: How Much Are High-Income Household Willing To Pay For Improved Collection?," Ilorin Journal of Economic Policy, Department of Economics, University of Ilorin, vol. 10(1), pages 57-71, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    2. Denantes, Julia & Donoso, Guillermo, 2021. "Factors influencing customer satisfaction with water service quality in Chile," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    3. Abdulmajeed Almadhi & Abdelhakim Abdelhadi & Rakan Alyamani, 2023. "Moving from Linear to Circular Economy in Saudi Arabia: Life-Cycle Assessment on Plastic Waste Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-22, July.
    4. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    5. Wietzke, Frank-Borge, 2024. "Perceptions of social class in Africa. Results from a conjoint experiment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    6. Robert Kubinec, 2018. "Patrons or Clients? Measuring and Experimentally Evaluating Political Connections of Firms in Morocco and Jordan," Working Papers 1280, Economic Research Forum, revised 26 Dec 2018.
    7. Heap, Shaun P. Hargreaves & Koop, Christel & Matakos, Konstantinos & Unan, Asli & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "We Cannot Disagree Forever! Reality Polarization and Citizens’ Post-Pandemic Fiscal Adjustment Preferences," SocArXiv 69tup, Center for Open Science.
    8. E. Keith Smith & Dennis Kolcava & Thomas Bernauer, 2024. "Stringent sustainability regulations for global supply chains are supported across middle-income democracies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Beber, Bernd & Ebert, Cara & Sievert, Maximiliane, 2024. "Is intent to migrate irregularly responsive to recent German asylum policy adjustments?," Ruhr Economic Papers 1071, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    11. Athey, Susan & Karlan, Dean & Palikot, Emil & Yuan, Yuan, 2022. "Smiles in Profiles: Improving Fairness and Efficiency Using Estimates of User Preferences in Online Marketplaces," Research Papers 4071, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    12. Saparova, Gulkaiyr & Khan, Ghulam Dastgir & Joshi, Niraj Prakash, 2024. "Linking farmers to markets: Assessing small-scale farmers' preferences for an official phytosanitary regime in the Kyrgyz Republic," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 696-708.
    13. Arntz, Melanie & Brüll, Eduard & Lipowski, Cäcilia, 2021. "Do preferences for urban amenities really differ by skill?," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-045, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Sana AKHTAR & Sarah DEAN & Faiza ANJUM & Maryam JAVED, 2018. "Determination of Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply in Selected Areas of Lahore," Chinese Journal of Urban and Environmental Studies (CJUES), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(02), pages 1-12, June.
    15. Joshua Alley, 2023. "Elite Cues and Public Attitudes Towards Military Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(7-8), pages 1537-1563, August.
    16. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    17. Tulsi Ram Aryal & Masaru Ichihashi & Shinji Kaneko, 2022. "How strong is demand for public transport service in Nepal? A case study of Kathmandu using a choice-based conjoint experiment," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Poulissen, Davey & de Grip, Andries & Fouarge, Didier & Künn-Nelen, Annemarie, 2021. "Employers' Willingness to Invest in the Training of Temporary Workers: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 14395, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. World Bank, 2021. "Nepal," World Bank Publications - Reports 35500, The World Bank Group.
    20. Heinzel, Mirko & Weaver, Catherine & Jorgensen, Samantha, 2024. "Bureaucratic representation and gender mainstreaming in international organizations: evidence from the World Bank," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122464, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2251-:d:750726. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.