In 2011, the delayed publication of the UK government’s Waste Strategydemonstrated the severe municipal waste challenge now facing England and Wales.There were produced 32.4 million tons of municipal wastes, with 27.3 milliontons of this coming from households in the year 2008/09. This denotes around 27kg of waste from each household per week. The policy also indicated that in thesame period, 81.
9% of this waste was directed to landfill, with only 11.2%being recycled and just 6.9% being burned with some energy recovery (DETR, 2011).
2.4 Problem and Practice of Bangladesh SWMServiceIn Bangladesh, a rising quality of life and high rates resources consumption patterns have had an unintendedand negative impact on the urban environment generation of waste far beyond the handling capacities urban government andagencies (Agamuthu et al., 2010). A significant amountof waste in Dhaka is not collected due to lack of infrastructure, funds andcollection vehicles. In Dhaka, there is provided communitybased door-to-door waste collection from households to local waste bins but itis limited. In case of household sector, wastes are typically collected ina non-segregated manner and placed into the slender containers at the households.
Organizations outsourced by City Corporation (CC) collect the waste in vans through waste collection vanservice on payment basis and carry to the secondary collection points (containers or predefined places). Subsequently, the wasteis carried by various sizes of trucks (authorized by the city Corporation) tothe landfill sites situated at Matuail and Amin Bazaar. In this connection, aninformal market operates to recycle a significant portion of the solid waste. Wastepicketers collect the recyclable things from both the different landfills andopen waste-bins and trade it to a recycle waste trader (Bhangari). Besides thescavengers, the Hawkers buy recyclables from door to door and trade with theBhangari (receivables buyers). The design of waste management practice in slum area householdsis different to some extent.
Generally, in these areas, the authority of CityCorporation does not provide any waste management services. In case of city streets,the process of waste management is quite different. The city corporationthrough its cleaners (permanents and temporary) undertakes the cleaning ofpublic places (roads, drains and parks etc.) on a daily basis. Unlike householdand public place waste management, commercial waste management isfar complicated. The waste collected from the city is disposed to the finaldestination at land filling sites (JICA, 2005; Burgess, 2015).
In case of Dhaka city, two important initiatives have beenundertaken for Solid Waste Management (SWM). One initiative was undertaken byJapan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in 2005 with the objectives offormulating a master plan of Dhaka City and to develop capabilities andmanagement skills of the Dhaka City Corporation. Another initiative, 3RStrategy was undertaken in 2010 by Department of Environment (DoE), Ministry ofEnvironment and Forestry of the Government. Towards sustainable waste management,3R can play a major role to protect environment from greenhouse gas emissionand convert waste into precious resources (Chowdhury et al., 2005). 2.5 Policies for Improved Solid WasteManagementWaste management has become agreat problem to the urban area. To solve this problem several policy instruments regarding solid wastemanagement have been proposed.
These include the command and control (Slack etal., 2009), i.e. waste regulation which is often accompanied by penalties incase of noncompliance. Command and control instruments have been proved not tonecessarily lead to compliance and improvement in environmental quality(Stafford, 2002) and thus not very effective.
The market-based mechanisms havebeen found to be more effective than the command and control (Driesen, 2006)because it provides several incentives for households. For example, negativeincentives such as revenue tax or ‘pay as you throw’ policies where the publicpay according to the volume or weight of their waste; positive incentives, i.e.funding opportunities or tax lessening is applied for those whose activitieslead to waste minimization (Gellynck and Verhelst, 2007). There is also amarket-based mechanism which is a mix of negative and positive incentive, e.
g.the deposit-refund systems (Wagner and Arnold, 2008; Mckerlie et al., 2006).The voluntary based mechanisms (e.g. voluntary participation in recycling) havealso been implemented in many communities (Werner et al., 1995; Palatnik et al.,2005).
Although there are many policy mechanisms regarding solid wastemanagement their efficiency may vary between communities. For example, wherethe actual volume of solid waste generated by households are not well known,the ‘pay as you throw’ policy may not be very fruitful in some developingcountries (Longe and Ukpebor, 2009). Thus, the price concerning solid wastemanagement services is often based on a flat rate fixed by waste managementauthorities and paid monthly by each household. For an improvement in wastemanagement services and consequently environmental quality, it will be excitingto explore how much money that households would be willing to pay. Theimprovement in environmental quality has the characteristics of environmentalgood (e.g. good that its economic value is not revealed in market prices), i.
e.non-excludability and non-rivalry (Hanley et al., 2007). As the economic benefits are not easily inferred fromordinary market, the waste management services are often under-priced ornon-priced (Anaman and Jair, 2000). The economic benefits of waste managementservices are typically estimated by non-market valuation method such as thecontingent valuation (Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Loomis, 1993; Bishop et al.
,1995;Ezebilo, 2010; Carson, 2011; Ezebilo et al., 2010; Shih and Chou, 2011;Imandoust and Gadam, 2007). They used survey questions to elicit people’spreferences for non-market goods by asking people how much they would bewilling to pay for stated improvements or to avoid decrements in them (Mitchelland Carson, 1989). Several studies that have been carried out in developingcountries have shown that household’s willingness to pay for solid wastemanagement is influenced by willingness to pay amount, age, income, householdsize, occupation and educational level