4.7 Article

E-waste bans and US households' preferences for disposing of their e-waste

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 124, 期 -, 页码 8-16

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.019

关键词

E-waste; Disposal bans; Multinomial logit; Public policy

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMII 0223894]
  2. University of California Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Program [UC 44157]
  3. Research and Education in Green Materials (REGM) at UC-Irvine
  4. School of Social Ecology at UC-Irvine
  5. Newkirk Center for Science and Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To deal with the inadequate disposal of e-waste, many states have instituted bans on its disposal in municipal landfills. However, the effectiveness of e-waste bans does not seem to have been analyzed yet. This paper starts addressing this gap. Using data from a survey of U.S. households, we estimate multivariate logit models to explain past disposal behavior by households of broken/obsolete (junk) cell phones and disposal intentions for junk TVs. Our explanatory variables include factors summarizing general awareness of environmental issues, pro-environmental behavior in the past year, attitudes toward recycling small electronics (for the cell phones model only), socio-economic and demographic characteristics, and the presence of state e-waste bans. We find that California's Cell Phone Recycling Act had a significant and positive impact on the recycling of junk cell phones; however, state disposal bans for junk TVs seem to have been mostly ineffective, probably because they were poorly publicized and enforced. Their effectiveness could be enhanced by providing more information about e-waste recycling to women, and more generally to adults under 60. Given the disappointing performance of policies implemented to-date to enhance the collection of e-waste, it may be time to explore economic instruments such as deposit-refund systems. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据