Who cares? The role of communication strategy and individual characteristics in the public acceptability of a waste management reform
(A2023-112355)

AUTHORS

Lesman Ghazaryan, Grenoble Ecole de Management; Corinne Faure, Grenoble Ecole de Management; Joachim Schleich, Grenoble Ecole de Management; Mia Birau, EM Lyon business school

ABSTRACT

This research investigates the acceptability of a new waste management policy aimed at reducing waste creation. Specifically, the new waste management policy implies a transition from a fixed tariff system – where the tariff is fixed and depends on the rental value of the dwelling; to an incentivized system – where the tariff will be variable and will depend on the number of waste collections. Based on the experimental data collected from 620 local residents in France, the study examines the acceptability of this transition conditional on residents’ initial level of waste creation and the communication strategy. In particular, we examine the altering effect of environmental and justice messages on the acceptability of the new tariff. The paper also investigates the moderating role of environmental identity and loss aversion. Municipal solid waste (MSW) management is one of the central aspects of municipal governance. Inappropriate MSW disposal and management can cause environmental hazards such as air, soil, and water pollution. Municipal solid waste, which is one of the most significant by-products of the urban environment, is increasing even more quickly than the pace of urbanization (World Bank, 2012). Because of this, the total environmental impact of MSW is rising at an alarming rate. MSW is the number one source of tossed-away products, especially in developing countries. With its explosive growth, waste MSW poses a big problem to the health and well-being of every person on earth and drives the local and central government agencies to design policies that can help reduce waste creation levels. Politicians often demur implementing environmental policies that can cause public disapproval (Loukopoulos et al., 2005; Banister, 2008). Therefore, policymakers heavily rely on public opinion while deciding whether or not to put environmental regulations into effect. This means that increasing the public's support for environmental policies is crucial to their effective implementation (Dietz & Stern, 2008). Consequently, it is important to understand the determinants of acceptability in environmental policies. Acceptability is one of the essential aspects of attitudes, and numerous studies have examined its role in predicting attitudes (Terrade et al., 2009; Posthuma & Dworkin, 2000; Schuitema et al., 2010; Teh et al., 2007; Steg et al., 2005). Existing research shows that the acceptability of a specific policy does not only depend on policy characteristics but also on the individual characteristics of people evaluating those policies (Gärling & Schuitema, 2007; Steg et al., 2005; Schuitema et al., 2010; Loukopoulos et al., 2005; Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003). Beyond acceptability, it is also essential to understand the determinants of different public reactions (Patchen, 2010; Ejelöv & Nilsson, 2020). Hence, it is necessary to explore the factors related to attitudinal and behavioral aspects of environmental policy acceptability. Financial compensation has been a well-established regulation principle that has guided sustainable environmental development in the world since the 19th century. The further evolvement of that principle is the polluter-pays principle which has already received approval from most of the OECD and EU countries. The polluter-pays principle, first adopted in 1972, states that the individual who causes environmental damage is responsible for the expense of that damage (OECD, 1972). Economic-incentive tools provide regulations to adjust people’s behavior through monetary signals rather than explicitly instructing people on pollution management pathways (Hahn & Stavins, 1991). The incentivized tariff system is based on a similar approach by bringing additional costs to those who produce more than average waste. With the implementation of the new tariff system, it is expected to have decreased levels of waste creation. One of the strategies that has increasing popularity in waste management systems is the differentiated fee policy. Besides its environmental benefits, the policy provides greater justice by allocating the waste management costs more proportionally between waste producers depending on the amount of their waste output (Reichenbach, 2008). The “pay-as-you-throw” (PAYT) policy is one of the economic tools to put the polluter-pays principle into practice at the municipal level, where charges are applied based on the amount of waste being sent to external management services (Reichenbach et al., 2004). The policy is also known under the names variable fee charge system, variable rate, unit pricing, and differential rate (OECD, 2006; van Beukering et al., 2009; Dijkgraaf & Gradus, 2005). The practice of the implementation of PAYT approach shows to be effective in waste reduction, material reuse, as well as better recycling habits (Canterbury, 1996; Van Houtven & Morris, 1999; Dijkgraaf & Gradus, 2005; Morlok et al., 2017; Dijkgraaf & Gradus, 2005; van Beukering et al., 2009; Lakhan, 2015). This study provides two specific contributions. First, it stresses the importance of the reference point in the public acceptability of a specific pro-environmental policy change. In addition to previous research on the role of the initial context in policy acceptance, this study elucidates the practicum in the case of waste management tariff change. Second, this study contributes to the existing literature by bringing more understanding about the relative effectiveness of an environmental message compared to a justice message. Previous research has investigated the roles of environmental and justice messages on policy acceptability separately. There is strong evidence that the public supports the policies when the effectiveness of the messages is clearly communicated and explained (Doda et al., 2016; Heres et al., 2017; Beuermann & Santarius, 2006; Beiser-McGrath & Bernauer, 2019). On the other hand, Carattini et al., (2017) find that the information on environmental effectiveness is no longer necessary to reach high levels of public support in the case of the carbon tax. Additionally, it has been suggested that increased individual costs and the negative perception of the policy justice reduce the acceptance of the proposed policy (Carattini et al., 2017) (Bergquist et al., 2020) (Jagers & Hammar, 2009) (Gevrek & Uyduranoglu, 2015) (Dreyer & Walker, 2013). Our study provides comparative analyses of an environmental message as opposed to a justice message in terms of their effectiveness on policy acceptance, positive reactions, concerns, and sidestepping maneuvers. References Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, Morality, Or Habit? Predicting Students’ Car Use for University Routes With the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502250134 Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005 Beiser-McGrath, L. F., & Bernauer, T. (2019). Could revenue recycling make effective carbon taxation politically feasible? Science Advances, 5(9), eaax3323. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax3323 Bergquist, P., Mildenberger, M., & Stokes, L. C. (2020). Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environmental Research Letters, 15(5), 054019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab81c1 Beuermann, C., & Santarius, T. (2006). Ecological tax reform in Germany: Handling two hot potatoes at the same time. Energy Policy, 34(8), 917–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.045 Canterbury, J. L. (1996). Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned about Unit Pricing of Municipal Solid Waste. DIANE Publishing. Carattini, S., Baranzini, A., Thalmann, P., Varone, F., & Vöhringer, F. (2017). Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable? Environmental and Resource Economics, 68(1), 97–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0133-8 Dietz, S., & Stern, N. (2008). Why Economic Analysis Supports Strong Action on Climate Change: A Response to the Stern Review ’s Critics. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(1), 94–113. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ren001 Dijkgraaf, E., & Gradus, R. (2005). Cost Savings of Unit-Based Pricing of Household Waste: The Case of the Netherlands (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 703962). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=703962 Doda, B., Gennaioli, C., Gouldson, A., Grover, D., & Sullivan, R. (2016). Are Corporate Carbon Management Practices Reducing Corporate Carbon Emissions? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(5), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1369 Dreyer, S. J., & Walker, I. (2013). Acceptance and Support of the Australian Carbon Policy. 40. Ejelöv, E., & Nilsson, A. (2020). Individual Factors Influencing Acceptability for Environmental Policies: A Review and Research Agenda. Sustainability, 12(6), 2404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062404 Gärling, T., & Schuitema, G. (2007). Travel Demand Management Targeting Reduced Private Car Use: Effectiveness, Public Acceptability and Political Feasibility. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00500.x Gevrek, Z. E., & Uyduranoglu, A. (2015). Public preferences for carbon tax attributes. Ecological Economics, 118, 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.020 Hahn, R. W., & Stavins, R. N. (1991). Incentive-Based Environmental Regulation: A New Era from an Old Idea. Ecology Law Quarterly, 18, 1. Heres, D. R., Kallbekken, S., & Galarraga, I. (2017). The Role of Budgetary Information in the Preference for Externality-Correcting Subsidies over Taxes: A Lab Experiment on Public Support. Environmental and Resource Economics, 66(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9929-6 “Hoornweg, Daniel; Bhada-Tata, Perinaz. 2012. What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Urban development series;knowledge papers no. 15. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.” Jagers, S. C., & Hammar, H. (2009). Environmental taxation for good and for bad: The efficiency and legitimacy of Sweden’s carbon tax. Environmental Politics, 18(2), 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802682601 Lakhan, C. (2015). Evaluating the effects of unit based waste disposal schemes on the collection of household recyclables in Ontario, Canada. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 95, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.12.005 Loukopoulos, P., Jakobsson, C., Gärling, T., Schneider, C. M., & Fujii, S. (2005). Public attitudes towards policy measures for reducing private car use: Evidence from a study in Sweden. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.07.008 Morlok, J., Schoenberger, H., Styles, D., Galvez-Martos, J.-L., & Zeschmar-Lahl, B. (2017). The Impact of Pay-As-You-Throw Schemes on Municipal Solid Waste Management: The Exemplar Case of the County of Aschaffenburg, Germany. Resources, 6(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6010008 Patchen, M. (2010). What Shapes Public Reactions to Climate Change? Overview of Research and Policy Implications. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 10(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01201.x Posthuma, R. A., & Dworkin, J. B. (2000). A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF ARBITRATOR ACCEPTABILITY. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022842 Reichenbach, J. (2008). Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe – A review of pilot research and implementation studies. Waste Management, 28(12), 2809–2814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.008 Reichenbach, J., Bilitewski, B., Karagiannidis, A., Sauer, P., Schiller, G., Deilman, C., Leone, F., Abert, J., Xirogiannopoulou, A., & al, at. (2004). Handbook on the implementation of Pay-As-You-Throw as a tool for urban waste management. Schuitema, G., Steg, L., & Rothengatter, J. A. (2010). The acceptability, personal outcome expectations, and expected effects of transport pricing policies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 587–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.002 Steg, L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2005). Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003 Teh, T., Dougherty, M. p., & Camire, M. e. (2007). How Do Consumer Attitudes Influence Acceptance of a Novel Wild Blueberry–Soy Product? Journal of Food Science, 72(7), S516–S521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00463.x Terrade, F., Pasquier, H., Reerinck-Boulanger, J., Guingouain, G., & Somat, A. (2009). L’acceptabilité sociale: La prise en compte des déterminants sociaux dans l’analyse de l’acceptabilité des systèmes technologiques. Le travail humain, 72(4), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.724.0383 van Beukering, P. J. H., Bartelings, H., Linderhof, V. G. M., & Oosterhuis, F. H. (2009). Effectiveness of unit-based pricing of waste in the Netherlands: Applying a general equilibrium model. Waste Management, 29(11), 2892–2901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.07.002 Van Houtven, G. L., & Morris, G. E. (1999). Household Behavior under Alternative Pay-as-You-Throw Systems for Solid Waste Disposal. Land Economics, 75(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147063