Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The Displacement Effect of Convenience

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The Displacement Effect of Convenience: The Case of Recycling

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The Displacement Effect of Convenience: The Case of Recycling. / Abbott, Andrew James; O'Shea, Lucy; Nandeibam, Shasikanta.
In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 136, 30.06.2017, p. 159-168.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Abbott, AJ, O'Shea, L & Nandeibam, S 2017, 'The Displacement Effect of Convenience: The Case of Recycling', Ecological Economics, vol. 136, pp. 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.020

APA

Vancouver

Abbott AJ, O'Shea L, Nandeibam S. The Displacement Effect of Convenience: The Case of Recycling. Ecological Economics. 2017 Jun 30;136:159-168. Epub 2017 Feb 24. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.020

Author

Abbott, Andrew James ; O'Shea, Lucy ; Nandeibam, Shasikanta. / The Displacement Effect of Convenience : The Case of Recycling. In: Ecological Economics. 2017 ; Vol. 136. pp. 159-168.

Bibtex

@article{5f31464de1704c4abca6f28e9c3f9a21,
title = "The Displacement Effect of Convenience: The Case of Recycling",
abstract = "In light of increasingly ambitious recycling targets it is important to analyse the potential displacement effect of improving access to kerbside provision on other forms of recycling. Do households view the different modes of recycling as substitutes or complements of each other? Does this perceived relationship depend on the type of material recycled? Using data for all of the UK's local governments from 2004Q2 to 2013Q3 we analyse the nature of the relationship between the two main channels of recycling. In the case of dry recycling, the empirical findings are ambiguous on the trade­off between kerbside and non-kerbside recycling. On the one hand, the findings suggest that there is no trade-off when considering the effect of expanding kerbside provision. On the other hand, the findings also suggest that there is a trade-off when we focus on the effect of expanding non­kerbside provision. However, putting together the empirical findings with theory (in particular, the symmetry property of the Hicksian substitution effect) suggests that there is a trade-off irrespective of whether we consider expansion of kerbside or non-kerbside provision. In the case of green (compost) recycling the empirical findings on their own or together with theory unambiguously suggest that there is a trade-off.",
keywords = "Recycling, Substitutability, Gross Substitutability, Waste Policy",
author = "Abbott, {Andrew James} and Lucy O'Shea and Shasikanta Nandeibam",
year = "2017",
month = jun,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.020",
language = "English",
volume = "136",
pages = "159--168",
journal = "Ecological Economics",
issn = "0921-8009",
publisher = "Elsevier Science B.V.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Displacement Effect of Convenience

T2 - The Case of Recycling

AU - Abbott, Andrew James

AU - O'Shea, Lucy

AU - Nandeibam, Shasikanta

PY - 2017/6/30

Y1 - 2017/6/30

N2 - In light of increasingly ambitious recycling targets it is important to analyse the potential displacement effect of improving access to kerbside provision on other forms of recycling. Do households view the different modes of recycling as substitutes or complements of each other? Does this perceived relationship depend on the type of material recycled? Using data for all of the UK's local governments from 2004Q2 to 2013Q3 we analyse the nature of the relationship between the two main channels of recycling. In the case of dry recycling, the empirical findings are ambiguous on the trade­off between kerbside and non-kerbside recycling. On the one hand, the findings suggest that there is no trade-off when considering the effect of expanding kerbside provision. On the other hand, the findings also suggest that there is a trade-off when we focus on the effect of expanding non­kerbside provision. However, putting together the empirical findings with theory (in particular, the symmetry property of the Hicksian substitution effect) suggests that there is a trade-off irrespective of whether we consider expansion of kerbside or non-kerbside provision. In the case of green (compost) recycling the empirical findings on their own or together with theory unambiguously suggest that there is a trade-off.

AB - In light of increasingly ambitious recycling targets it is important to analyse the potential displacement effect of improving access to kerbside provision on other forms of recycling. Do households view the different modes of recycling as substitutes or complements of each other? Does this perceived relationship depend on the type of material recycled? Using data for all of the UK's local governments from 2004Q2 to 2013Q3 we analyse the nature of the relationship between the two main channels of recycling. In the case of dry recycling, the empirical findings are ambiguous on the trade­off between kerbside and non-kerbside recycling. On the one hand, the findings suggest that there is no trade-off when considering the effect of expanding kerbside provision. On the other hand, the findings also suggest that there is a trade-off when we focus on the effect of expanding non­kerbside provision. However, putting together the empirical findings with theory (in particular, the symmetry property of the Hicksian substitution effect) suggests that there is a trade-off irrespective of whether we consider expansion of kerbside or non-kerbside provision. In the case of green (compost) recycling the empirical findings on their own or together with theory unambiguously suggest that there is a trade-off.

KW - Recycling

KW - Substitutability

KW - Gross Substitutability

KW - Waste Policy

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.020

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.020

M3 - Journal article

VL - 136

SP - 159

EP - 168

JO - Ecological Economics

JF - Ecological Economics

SN - 0921-8009

ER -