1. No category

+
1
Consumers and Composting: Assessing
Willingness to Pay for Composting in a Commercial
Setting using a Contingent Valuation Framework
LCA XI – CHICAGO, IL
October 4-6, 2011
Amy Landis*: Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, [email protected]
Melissa Bilec*: Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, [email protected]
Kristen Osterwood:
Graduate Student, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, [email protected]
Nick Stamatakis:
Undergraduate Summer Researcher, Department of
Industrial Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, [email protected]
*Presenters
+
2
Where are these products going?
Where should they go?
How should they get there?
Should we even produce them?
+
Does the consumer know what will happen to his/her “green
cup”?
http://aquirkyblog.com/
http://www.kollvik.com/
3
+
4
The other part of the story…
We aren’t composting what we
“should” be composting…

Several analyses of environmental impacts have shown that, excluding
certain abnormal situations, composting organic waste is the preferred
disposal option when compared to landfilling: composting has reduced
energy use, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and requires no landfill
construction (Barlaz et al., 2003; Kaplan et al., 2009).

Currently, these benefits are not being realized on any large scale in the
United States.

Only 2.5% of organic waste (excluding yard waste) is composted,
leaving over 30 million tons of waste unrecovered (EPA, 2009).

Commercial businesses are a significant potential source of organic
waste to supply an organized composting infrastructure to achieve the
aforementioned environmental benefits .
+ The aim of this research is to identify the optimal disposal options
and infrastructure for compostable bio-based polymers and
compost based on each of the three pillars of sustainability (EEE)

Quantify the life cycle
environmental impacts of
different disposal options
(environment)

Evaluate organizational
(society) and economic
barriers (economy)

Quantify stakeholders’
willingness to pay (economy)

Assess consumers’ disposal
habits (environment)

Evaluate methods to alter
disposal habits (society)
REU’s Dan Jacobs & William Burroughs at
Phipps Conservatory Café
5
+ The
Conflict
Compost cannot be
lower quality than
this
6
Cost
Quality

Contingent Valuation Study to find Willingness to Pay in
businesses
Farmers
cannot
afford
more than
this
Quick
Background
on
+
Contingent Valuation

Trying to put a dollar value on
environment issues via surveys

Started in 1960s with forest
conservation

1980s – Reagan’s executive order

1990s – Exxon Valdez, NOAA panel

2000s – New insight in cognitive
behavior
7
+
8
Our Contingent Valuation Study
Methods
 In
store interviews as
opposed to mail or
telephone home
surveys

 Pre-testing, training,
and surveying in
June and July 2010.
 Two
valuation
scenarios.
Agricultural (FARM) –
Additional surcharge goes to
hauling, processing, and
subsidies so farmers can use
it instead of using fertilizers.
Compost also rebuilds brown
fields.
http://www.bearpathfarm.com/compo
st-as-mulch.html

Commercial (GOLF) –
Additional surcharge goes to
hauling and processing.
Without subsidies, golf
courses, ball fields, and
ornamental gardens will be
the only places able to afford
it.
http://www.jgpress.com/i
mages/art/0407/040752.jp
g
+
9
Survey Design

Develop the survey to be as short as possible to attract as
many respondents as possible.

Prevent yea-saying, or quick approval of survey questions.

Maximize statistical efficiency given the shortcomings of
a non-standardized sample.

Reduce hypothetical bias.
+ Survey Sites and Response Rates
175 completed
surveys out of 221
approached (79%)
58 out of
75 (77%)
75 out of
98 (77%)
42 out of
48 (88%)
Simpatico – Downtown – Coffee kiosk serving non-profits and job seekers
EatUnique – Oakland – young students and professionals
Make Your Mark – Point Breeze – middle aged women
Demographic considerations: most surveyed were white and probably had
average/above average incomes.
10
+
11
+
12
Variable PRICE
+
13
Variable WEEK
+
14
Variable ENV
+
15
Variable TRUST
+
16
Scenario GOLF
Scenario FARM
OK. Finished compost would be sold at market
prices to anybody willing to purchase it. These
customers would probably include landscapers,
golf courses, and ball fields. However, this
system would not pay for itself, and just like with
landfilling, the hauling and infrastructure costs
would be distributed into the food prices.
OK. Finished compost would be sold heavily
discounted to farmers to help them rebuild soils
and reduce chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
Compost would also be used on old factory sites
and vacant lots to make the soil less toxic.
However, this system would not pay for itself,
and just like with landfilling, the hauling and
infrastructure costs would be distributed into the
food prices.
+
17
First question: Are you willing to pay for FARM or GOLF?
36 said NO
139 said YES
So what variables are predictive of somebody’s likelihood of
saying yes?
+
18
Data Collection, Variables Tested,
Results

A predictive model of WTP
could not be established for
any combinations of variables,
even after separating
Agricultural uses.

The variables of “Price” and
“Environment” proved to be
the only consistently relevant
variables to predicting
observed willingness to pay.
+
Percentage of
food price
(PRICE)
respondents
are definitely
willing to pay
19
Oakland
Downtown
Point Breeze
Percentage of respondents who would not be willing to pay with different
surcharges (100% certainty)
+
20
+
21
Summary of results

With special attention placed on in-store anchoring effects,
results suggest approximately 80% of surveyed consumers
are willing to pay between $0.24 and $0.70 per purchase for
commercial composting.

Consumers did differentiate between compost used for
agricultural (e.g., food gardens) and commercial purposes
(e.g., golf courses).

This survey indicates half of people might not pay 5.6% and
half of people would definitely not pay 16%.
+
22
References

Barlaz, M.A., Kaplan, P.O., Ranjithan, S.R., Rynk, R., 2003.
EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES. BioCycle 44, 52.

Kaplan, P.O., Ranjithan, S.R., Barlaz, M.A., 2009. Use of LifeCycle Analysis To Support Solid Waste Management Planning
for Delaware. Environmental Science & Technology 43, 12641270.

EPA, 2009. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and
Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008.
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
+
23
Thank-You!


Jeff & Drew Holmes at Mr
TakeOutBags for donations
Eat Unique, Simpatico, Oh
Yeah!, Make Your Mark

Matt Mehalik from
Sustainable Pittsburgh

Nick Shorr, Pennsylvania
Resources Council
 Surveyors:

Cassie Thiel

Kayla Reddington

Scott Shrake

Madeline Allen
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant Nos.
(0647387, 1066658).”
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation."

NCIIA Award #5120-07

NSF Award No. 0647387: MCSI REU Program

NSF 1066658: Evaluating Sustainable Disposal Options for
Compostable Biopolymers