793939

research-article2018
WMR0010.1177/0734242X18793939Waste Management & ResearchFukuda et al.

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Measuring the impact of modern waste

2018, Vol. 36(9) 841­–848
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
collection and processing service attributes sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X18793939
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18793939

on residents’ acceptance of waste journals.sagepub.com/home/wmr

separation policy using a randomised

conjoint field experiment in Yogyakarta
Province, Indonesia

Katsufumi Fukuda1, Rofiq Isdwiyani2, Keisuke Kawata3 and Yuichiro

Yoshida1

Abstract
Indonesia is one of the countries that is facing serious solid waste problems. Although the issue has been addressed in the capital city
of Jakarta, many secondary cities have been left behind. This research attempts to analyse the impact of relevant waste management
policy components on respondents’ policy acceptance probabilities in Yogyakarta Province. Using a randomised conjoint field
experiment based on the proposal of modern waste collection services, this article shows that a new waste management policy that
includes waste separation with frequent organic waste collection will gain popular support, especially with the rich. Indeed, if the
government introduces waste collection and processing services that consist of the most preferred levels of these attributes, including
five-times-a-week organic waste collection, a majority of the residents will support this new waste management policy, which will
reduce waste at its source.

Keywords
Waste management policy, solid waste, waste separation, organic waste, randomised conjoint experiment, Indonesia

Received 18th May 2018, accepted 19th July 2018 by Associate Editor Alberto Bezama.

Introduction and Viraraghavan, 2005; Zhang et al., 2010). In Indonesia, almost

Reflecting its rapid economic growth, Indonesia is facing serious
solid waste problems. The situation is more acute in its secondary
cities than in the capital city of Jakarta, which has already started
to address the issue. A new waste management system, including
waste sorting at the source, is a potential solution for waste reduc-
tion; however, it may face public opposition owing to increased
costs. This article analyses the causal effects of the relevant pol-
icy components impacting respondent’s acceptance of the new
waste management policy based on a randomised conjoint field
experiment conducted in Sleman Regency of Yogyakarta
Province, Indonesia.
An increase in population and economic growth leads to an
increase in waste generation particularly in urban environments
(Rathi, 2007) especially in developing countries (Yuan and Yabe,
2015). Yogyakarta Province has the second highest concentration
of population and economic activity in Indonesia. The population
of Yogyakarta Province is growing at a rate higher than that of
Jakarta (Statistics of Indonesia, 2017). Municipal solid waste
(MSW) in Asia is projected to more than double by 2025 (Pokhrel
60% of the waste is organic waste. Households contribute 48% of
the waste and are the largest contributor in Indonesia.
A study conducted by the Ministry of Economic Affairs in
2013 discovered that a large majority of the landfills in
Indonesia still operate as open dumps. It is only Jakarta that has
already budgeted 2457 billion rupiahs to centralise the waste
management in their area, resulting in almost 90% of the total
waste being managed by the government and ending up in con-
trolled landfill sites. By contrast, Yogyakarta Province spends
only 14.2 billion rupiahs to manage waste (Local Government
1Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation,
Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
2Environmental Agency of Magelang Regency, Magelang, Indonesia
3Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Corresponding author:
Yuichiro Yoshida, Graduate School for International Development
and Cooperation, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama,
Higashihiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan.
Email: yuichiro@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
842 Waste Management & Research 36(9)
of Yogyakarta Province, 2015). Only 17% of the total waste in
Yogyakarta is managed by the government, and most of the
waste is mismanaged by the community. Inappropriate waste
management causes various environmental problems, such as
water, soil and air pollution, resulting in serious health prob-
lems. MSW disposed of in landfills can produce methane gas,
which has been identified as a cause of increasing global warm-
ing. According to the US Environmental Agency’s Global
report, in 2010, Indonesia occupied seventh place on the list of
global methane emissions sources.
Zhuang et al. (2008) stated that waste sorting at the source is
an effective policy for waste reduction. Germany, the United
States and Japan have successfully implemented waste separa-
tion as part of their waste management systems. In Japan, the
total MSW was reduced by 69% by implementing a waste sepa-
ration system (Ministry of Environment of Japan, 2014). In
Indonesia, the waste management is based on a simple collect–
transport–dispose method, resulting in low participation in reduc-
ing waste volume at the source. In facing this situation, the
Indonesian government enacted Law No. 18 in 2008 and
Government Regulation No. 81 in 2012, which aim ‘3R’ (reduc-
tion, reusing and recycling) by promoting waste separation at its
source, along with an intermediate waste processing and a proper
final disposal treatment. However, Statistics of Indonesia 2017
indicate that the percentage of households that do not separate
their waste is still 81%.
Identifying household preference toward waste management
service components is an important consideration when success-
fully introducing waste separation policies (Oosterveer and
Spaargaren, 2010). We thus conduct a field experiment to infer
households’ attitude towards modern waste management systems
by gathering stated household preferences for hypothetical waste
collection services that focus on waste separation at the source.
Some research has been conducted to examine personal pref-
erences for waste management in different areas. Caplan et al.
(2002) conducted research on waste management preferences in
Ogden, UT, which faced waste generation problems owing to the
closing of its landfill and rapid population growth. In contrast to
the current article, which utilises a randomised conjoint field
experiment, they used the contingent ranking method to deter-
mine personal preferences for waste management. Caplan et al.
(2002) considered different levels of waste service costs and
waste separations. For waste separation, they provided options of
no separation, green waste and recyclable waste. They also pro-
vided options for different levels of service costs, which included
the current and higher service costs. They found that people in
Ogden supported the new waste management system and stated
that more than half of the respondents were willing to separate
their waste as garbage and green waste. Yuan and Yabe (2014b)
conducted another study on the household preferences of kitchen
waste source separation in Beijing, China, via a contingent valu-
ation method. The research showed that compensation is not a
major factor in residents accepting the proposed separation ser-
vices; rather, the most important service characteristics that
people want are frequent waste collection in the evening using
plastic bag containers without instruction.
Hazra et al. (2015) included a list of attributes in their random
parameter logit models. They found that education and income
are positively related with willingness to pay (WTP) for waste
collection services, meaning that highly educated and high-
income people tend to have higher WTPs than less educated peo-
ple with lower incomes. To understand household preferences for
waste management, some researchers, including Sakata (2007),
Nakatani et al. (2008), and Sheau-Ting et al. (2016), used con-
joint analysis in which respondents had the freedom to determine
what type of waste management they prefer. Nakatani et al.
(2008) discovered that people would like to support waste sepa-
ration as part of the waste management policy in Kawasaki City.
Sheau-Ting et al. (2016) stated that the distance to the nearest
recycling bin must be considered when encouraging people to
separate waste.
These previous studies utilised methods, such as conventional
conjoint analysis and random utility models, to capture personal
preferences for waste management. Random utility models for
example, require parametric assumptions on the preference dis-
tribution, such that the preference for observable characteristics
is additive separable and the preference for unobservable charac-
teristics follows the type I extreme value distribution (see, for
example, Small and Rosen, 1981). Rather than using approaches
that rely on more restrictive assumptions, this study uses a ran-
domised conjoint experiment based on Hainmueller et al. (2013).
Hainmueller et al. (2013) revised the conventional conjoint anal-
ysis in the framework of a randomised experimental design to
estimate the causal effects of policy components on respondent’s
choice probabilities without bias arising from misspecification,
extending the findings from the conventional methodological
literature.
In this new conjoint analysis, the attribute levels for each
alternative are randomly assigned when constructing the choice
sets, which allows us to identify the causal effects of each attrib-
ute on the decision non-parametrically. This article thus estimates
the causal effects of relevant waste management policy aspects,
such as collection frequency and waste processing methods, on
personal acceptance of the new waste separation policy.
The next section discusses the data, the design of the conjoint
experiment and the estimation strategy. This is followed by the
the results and findings, before conclusions.
Survey design, data profiles, and
estimation strategy
Survey area and data
Survey is conducted in Sleman Regency in the northern part of
Yogyakarta Province where population and economy are rapidly
growing. Population growth has been 1.41% over the past 5 years,
and in 2015 the economic growth rate was 5.31%, which was the
highest among all the districts in Yogyakarta Province. The main
Fukuda et al. 843

Table 1.  Number of households surveyed in project-affected villages.

Respondent characteristics Freq. %

Gender Male 156 52.00
  Female 144 48.00
Age Young (<35 years old) 70 23.33
  Middle (35–60 years old) 211 70.33
  Elderly (<60 years) 19 6.33
Education level Elementary school 24 8.00
  Junior high school 20 6.67
  Senior high school 156 52.00
  Bachelor degree 94 31.33
  Master/Phd 5 1.67
  No answer 1 0.33
Occupation Civil servant 17 5.67
  Private sector 64 21.33
  Own small business 112 37.33
  Retired 6 2.00
  Others 100 33.33
  No answer 1 0.33
Monthly income <1 million rupiahs 52 17.33
  1–2.5 million rupiahs 124 41.33
  2.5–5 million rupiahs 88 29.33
  5–7.5 million rupiahs 7 2.33
  >7.5 million rupiahs 4 1.33
  No answer 25 8.33
Household size 1–4 people 248 82.67
  5–6 people 43 14.33
  7–10 people 9 3.00
Status of the house Self-Owned 165 55.00
  Rent 119 39.67
  Others 16 5.33
Length of stay <5 years 96 32.00
  5–10 years 92 30.67
  11–20 years 29 9.67
  >20 years 83 27.67

survey of this research was conducted from 27 February to 12
March 2017 and includes 300 households as respondents.
A household questionnaire was used to capture the character-
istics and behaviour concerning the waste management of the
households. The questionnaire included (1) basic information,
such as age, gender, education, occupation, family size and
monthly income; and (2) household waste management behav-
iour, such as waste separation behaviour, and satisfaction with
the current waste management. The characteristics of the house-
holds are shown in Table 1, while the household behaviour shows
that most of the respondents do not separate waste at their home;
just 26% separate their waste into organic and inorganic waste.
According to the survey, more than 40% of respondents stated
that mixed transport and disposal facilities that do not support
waste separation discourage their willingness to separate waste.
In this area, organic and inorganic waste are still mixed in the
temporary waste shelter. Furthermore, there is no intermediate
processing facility to process both organic and inorganic waste
separately. Another potential reason for the respondents to not
separate waste is a lack of time; a quarter of the respondents
stated they do not have time for waste separation without plastic
bags for sorting waste being available. The respondents were also
asked about the importance of waste separation. More than half
of the respondents agree that waste separation will reduce envi-
ronmental pollution and negative health effects, and nearly 34%
believe that recyclable waste can be sold to earn money.
Experimental design
As mentioned above, we use a randomised conjoint experiment
analysis based on Hainmueller et al. (2013) to assess households’
acceptance of new waste management policies. In this experiment,
we generate hypothetical waste collection services that aim to
improve waste management services specifically in the research
area. In each choice set, we provide three alternatives, including
two proposed policies and the status quo, and respondents are asked
to rank each of these three alternatives based on their preference.
We first show the scenario to each respondent so that they under-
stand the research aim and design and their role in it. The following
scenario is used to explain our experiment to the respondents:
844 Waste Management & Research 36(9)

Table 2.  Detailed attributes and their levels.

No. Attributes Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

1. Organic waste collection Once a week 3 times a week 5 times a week  
(Frequency of organic waste collection and
transportation services in a week which is
provided by the government)
2. Inorganic waste collection Once a week 3 times a week 5 times a week  
(Frequency of inorganic waste collection and
transportation services in a week which is
provided by the government)
3. Walking time to the nearest waste shelters 30 minutes 15 minutes 5 minutes  
(The time required to bring the waste from
respondent house to the nearest temporary
waste collection services)
4. Intermediate disposal facilities None (there is Composting Recycling Incineration
(The facilities are constructed by the no intermediate
government and are used to process both disposal
organic and inorganic waste before final facilities)
disposal)
5. Final disposal facilities Open dumping Sanitary  
landfill
6. Monthly payment for waste collection 96,000 rupiahs 48,000 rupiahs 24,000 rupiahs Free (represent
services (standard the area which
monthly payment has no waste
in the research collection
location) services)

We will ask your preferences on hypothetical household waste
collection and disposal service methods. You will be requested to
rank three alternatives: hypothetical policy A, hypothetical policy
B, and neither (or, current status without new policy) as choice C.
Among the three options, the rankings are 1) the most preferable
choice, 2) the second preferable choice and 3) the least preferable
choice. The common assumptions of household waste collection
and disposal methods are 1) each household has the responsibility
to perform waste separation at home, 2) each household has to
bring the separated waste to the nearest collection station, 3)
payment per month per household is the only fee that the you will
pay. You will be asked to make rankings four times with different
combinations of household waste collection and disposal methods
with different conditions.
Then, we give the respondent the questionnaire including four
choice sets. The proposed policy programme has six attributes
for which the values (or ‘levels’) are randomly assigned. These
attributes are organic waste collection frequency, inorganic waste
collection frequency, walking time to the nearest waste station,
intermediate processing facility, final processing facility and
monthly payment amount. The detailed attributes and their
respective levels are shown in Table 2.
The first and the second attributes are the frequency of the
organic and inorganic waste collection services (labelled as organic
collection and inorganic collection, respectively), each with three
levels. The government provides the waste collection service on
the designated days of week, and in principle, residents are allowed
to bring their organic waste to the temporary waste shelters only on
those days when collection service is provided.
The third attribute is the walking time to the nearest tempo-
rary waste shelter in the respondent’s area (walking time), also at
three levels. The fourth attribute is the intermediate processing
facilities (intermediate), which is given at four levels, namely
none available, composting, recycling and incineration.
Intermediate processing facilities are used to process both organic
and inorganic waste to support the waste separation system.
Composting facilities offer an intermediate processing to process
organic waste into compost. Recycling facilities process recycla-
ble inorganic waste. Incineration facilities handle both organic
and inorganic waste by burning.
The fifth attribute is the final disposal facilities (final), with
two levels, to accommodate the waste after being processed by
the intermediate processing facilities, if any. The first level is
open dumping, which is a common final disposal method in
Indonesia. where there is no treatment to minimise the environ-
mental pollution from the waste. The second level is a sanitary
landfill, which is a method of waste disposal where the waste is
buried either underground or in large piles where waste is con-
trolled and monitored closely.
The last attribute is the monthly payment for waste collection
services (payment), which is set at four levels. These levels
include free, 24,000 rupiahs, 48,000 rupiahs and 96,000 rupiahs
(or approximately, 2, 4, and 8 US dollars, respectively.) Currently,
payment is zero in the areas that have no waste collection ser-
vices, while 24,000 rupiahs is a standard monthly payment for
the waste collection services in the research area. Each respond-
ent is required to make four ranking decisions for four different
choice sets. Each of the two alternatives (namely, alternatives A
and B) in each choice set consists a unit of analysis and the data
set includes 2400 observations with for 300 respondents (i.e.
2 × 4 × 300 = 2400).
Fukuda et al. 845
Estimation strategy
To estimate the causal effects of the policy attributes on the proba-
bility that each proposed policy alternatives is preferable to the sta-
tus quo, Hainmueller et al. (2013) proposed the following model:
L Dl
yitj = β 0 + ∑∑β
l =1 d = 2
ld α itjld + uitj
where aitjld is a dummy variable for the lth level of attribute l of
policy j in task t of respondent i, L is the number of attributes, Dl
is the number of levels of attribute l, β ld is its coefficient to be
estimated and uitj denotes the error term. (Clustered-robust stand-
ard errors at the respondent level are used in all the regressions.)
Then, yitj is a choice indicator variable for the estimation of the
choice probability; yitj = 1 if the preference rank of policy j is
higher than the status quo.
Welfare analysis by partial identification
of WTP
As we use independent randomised attribute levels in each choice
set, the estimation strategy above provides unbiased and consist-
ent average component effect of each of the policy attributes
indicating its influence on the respondents’ policy acceptance
probability. The above randomised conjoint experiment designed
by Hainmueller et al. (2013) allows us to partially identify the
distribution of the WTP and to compute the lower bound of the
average WTP for accepting the proposed policy non-parametri-
cally. (See Appendix for the technical details of the computation
of the willingness to pay and its lower bound in our context.)
WTP is a monetary amount that an individual or a household
agrees to pay in return for the receipt of the benefit that derives from
a proposed policy change or implementation. WTP is a standard
measurement of social benefit in those fields, including economics
and policy analysis, allowing to quantitatively assess the welfare
impact by using monetary measurement. This yields a cost–benefit
ratio that justifies the policy implementation, if it exceeds unity.
There are methods allowing the WTP estimation in the stated-
preference literature such as contingent valuation method (CVM)
and discrete choice experiments (DCEs). (See, for instance,
Alberini and Cooper, 2000; Arrow et, al., 1993; Johnston et al.,
2017.) CVM presents common attribute levels to all respondents
in its typical survey design, which makes it difficult to accurately
estimate preferences over multi-attribute policy alternatives.
DCEs has been a popular alternative especially during the last
two decades, though it is based on a specific decision model
assuming a parametric random utility, and thus requires untesta-
ble assumptions: The additive separability of utility functions
and error terms that follow the type-I extreme-value distribution.
(See McFadden, 1974, for his original work.)
In the literature, WTP is typically estimated based on the para-
metric discrete choice model. However, the non-parametric
approach of WTP estimation based on a non-parametric choice
model whose result is free from the parametric assumptions on
the utility function reduces potential bias owing to misspecifica-
tion. Following Bhattacharya (2015), who provided a point esti-
mate of WTP, the present article thus estimates the lower bound
of WTP by using the non-parametric framework via direct appli-
cations of the randomized conjoint experiment methodolgy by
Hainmueller et al., 2013 (HHY) conjoint that only requires non-
restrictive behavioural assumptions.
Results and findings
Average component effects of policy
attributes
The results of the choice probability estimation are summarised
in Figure 1. As can be seen in Figure 1, an organic waste collec-
tion frequency of five times a week has a significant impact on
the peoples’ acceptance of the proposed policy, unlike three times
a week. This implies that respondents prioritise the frequency of
organic waste collection services over the other attributes, and
that five-times-a-week collection increases the support of the
new waste management policy by 5.5%.
As for the inorganic waste attribute, in contrast, collection fre-
quency does not affect the policy acceptance probability. These
results imply that residents are more concerned with the collec-
tion frequency of organic waste, not that of inorganic waste.
Notably the other attributes, namely, walking time, intermediate,
and final, do not have statistically significant effects, meaning
that they do not have any effect on the probability that the
respondents will support the new waste collection services.
In terms of the payment attribute, the lowest payment, that is
no monthly payment, provides the biggest impact in terms of
increasing the probability that a respondent will support a new
waste management policy relative to other monthly payments.
No monthly payments increase the respondent choice probability
by 28%, followed by that of 24,000 rupiahs (approximately 2 US
dollars) with approximately 18%, and 48,000 rupiahs (approxi-
mately 4 US dollars) with approximately 8%, all of which are
relative to the baseline of 96,000 rupiahs (the highest monthly
payment of approximately 8 US dollars).
The constant term is 17%, meaning that the percentage of peo-
ple who will support the new waste collection service at the bench-
mark (or the worst set of attributes) is only 17%. However, the
implementation of the most preferred waste management policy
will gain majority support for waste separation. If the government
introduces a waste collection service that consists of the most pre-
ferred levels of the attributes, including a five-times-a-week
organic waste collection service without monthly payment, then
the policy acceptance rate will increase to approximately 59%.
Interaction effects
Acceptance of the new waste management policy depends on
their characteristics. Figure 2 shows that males do not like to
walk too long to a waste station, whereas female respondents
846 Waste Management & Research 36(9)

Figure 1.  Average component effects on the policy acceptance probability.

Notes: The figure describes the estimated average component effects for each policy attribute with specific levels using the clustered-robust
95% confidence intervals (horizontal bars) in which the robustness levels are the respondent clustering. In the figure, the six attributes, includ-
ing their respective levels, are located on the left side, with the worst level as the baseline, which is illustrated by the solid circle on the zero
line without showing the interval estimates. The baseline reference levels are as follows: ‘once a week’ for the organic collection attribute,
‘once a week’ for the inorganic collection attribute, ‘30 minutes’ for the walking time attribute, ‘none’ for the intermediate attribute, ‘open
dumping’ for the final attribute, and the highest payment of ‘96,000 rupiahs’ for the payment attribute.

Figure 2.  Interaction of causal effects on the policy acceptance probability with gender.
Notes: Male is the benchmark and constitutes 52% of the entire sample, while female constitutes the remaining 48%.

care more about the cost of the services. When the waste col-
lection is free, the probability of policy acceptance of the
female respondents increases by approximately 15% more
than that of male respondents. Figure 3 shows that retired peo-
ple and those who rent their houses have a negative tendency
to accept the new waste separation policy. The results for
those with master or PhD degrees are also significantly nega-
tive, however, this result may be affected by their small sam-
ple size. In turn, respondents with higher monthly income
(above 7.5 million rupiahs, approximately 500 US dollars)
have a strong tendency to accept the policy compared with
those in other income classes.
Fukuda et al. 847
Figure 3.  Policy acceptance probability conditional on household characteristics.
Frequency
Figure 4.  Density distribution of WTP for the acceptance of
the proposed new waste management policy.
Welfare analysis
Figure 4 shows the distribution of WTP to accept the proposed
waste management policy. As shown in the figure, a slight major-
ity of the respondents have a positive WTP, supporting our basic
findings that the policy will gain majority support when there is
no monthly payment. It is computed that the lower bound of the
average WTP is positive as long as the average WTP among the
negative WTP respondents is at least greater than 57,000 rupiahs
(see Appendix for computational details). In other words, society
most likely gains positive welfare by introducing the modern
waste management policy.
Conclusion
Indonesia is one of the countries facing the most serious waste prob-
lems. In contrast to the capital city of Jakarta, secondary cities in
Indonesia, such as Yogyakarta, have been left behind in the moderni-
sation of waste management policy. This research examined the peo-
ple’s preference toward accepting modern waste collection and
processing services, including separation of organic waste at the
source, which is expected to reduce the increasing amount of solid
waste. We conducted a randomised conjoint field experiment in
Sleman Regency of Yogyakarta Province. The results show that the
frequency of organic waste collection and the monthly cost are sig-
nificant determinants of the acceptance of the new waste separation
policy. Indeed, if the government introduces a new waste collection
service consisting of the most preferred levels of the attributes,
namely, a free, five-times-a-week organic waste collection service,
then the majority of the people will support the new waste manage-
ment policy. Analysis of the heterogeneous impact with respect to
household characteristics revealed that those who are retired and
those renting their houses are less likely to accept the waste separa-
tion policy, while richer households are strongly willing to accept the
new waste management policy. The welfare analysis result shows
that, while the government will have to cater to the needs of those
who are against the policy, such as with differentiated monthly pay-
ments according to income classes, there remains strong potential
that the new policy will result in overall welfare gain for the society.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
was partly supported by a Grant for Environmental Research Projects
#153421 from The Sumitomo Foundation.
References
Alberini A and Cooper J (2000) Applications of the contingent valuation
method in developing countries: A survey (Vol. 146). Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, et al. (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on
contingent valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601–4614.
Bhattacharya D (2015) Nonparametric welfare analysis for discrete choice.
Econometrica 83: 617–649.
Caplan AJ, Grijalva TC and Jakus PM (2002) Waste not or want not? A con-
tingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options. Ecological
Economics 43: 185–197.
Hainmueller J, Hopkins DJ and Yamamoto T (2013) Causal inference in con-
joint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated prefer-
ence experiments. Political Analysis 22: 1–30.
848 Waste Management & Research 36(9)

Hazra T, Goel S and Maitra B (2015) Willingness-to-pay and preference het- people whose WTP to accept the policy of which all attributes’
erogeneity for service attributes of solid waste management: An experi-
values (except the payment attribute) are given by a vector a is
ence in Kolkata, India. Global NEST Journal 17: 82–92.
Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, et al. (2017) Contemporary guidance equal to X, and let F(X|a) be its cumulative density such that:
for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental
and Resource Economists 4: 319–405. X
Local Government of Yogyakarta Province (2015) Report of Accountability
Description of Yogyakarta Province. Yogyakarta: Local Government of
F ( X |a ) =
−∞
∫ f ( x|a ) dx.
Yogyakarta Province.
McFadden D (1974) The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of
Public Economics 3: 303–328. Note here that if we denote by q(X,a) the choice probability of a
Ministry of Economic Affairs (2015) Study of National Policies and Strategies
policy with payment X and other attributes a against the status
to Accelerate Waste Management. Jakarta: Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Ministry of Environment of Japan (2014) History and Current State of Waste quo (i.e. no policy), then we immediately have:
Management in Japan. Tokyo: Ministry of Environment of Japan.
Nakatani J, Aramaki T and Hanaki K (2008) Evaluating source separation of F ( X |a ) = 1 − q ( X , a )
plastic waste using conjoint analysis. Waste Management 28: 2393–2402.
Oosterveer P and Spaargaren G (2010) Meeting social challenges in develop-
ing sustainable environmental infrastructures in East African cities. Social The marginal distribution of the WTP is then obtained simply
Perspectives on the Sanitation Challenge. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.11–30. by summing the above over the attribute space:
Pokhrel D and Viraraghavan T (2005) Municipal solid waste management in
Nepal: Practices and challenges. Waste Management 25: 555–562.
Rathi S (2007) Optimization model for integrated municipal solid waste man-
F(X ) = ∑F ( X |a ) p ( a ).
a
agement in Mumbai, India. Environment and Development Economics
12: 105–121. where p(a) is the relative frequency of attribute combination a
Sakata Y (2007) A choice experiment of the residential preference of waste given X. Finally, let F-1(F) be the inverse of F(X). Then, the aver-
management services – The example of Kagoshima city, Japan. Waste 1
Management 27: 639–644.
∫F (φ ) dφ . (Applying integra-
−1
age WTP is simply obtained as
Sheau-Ting L, Sin-Yee T and Weng-Wai C (2016) Preferred attributes of
0
waste separation behaviour: An empirical study. Procedia Engineering
145: 738–745. tion by parts and by substitution to the definition of the average
Small KA and Rosen HS (1981) Applied welfare economics with discrete X
choice models. Econometrica 49: 105–130.
Statistics of Indonesia (2017) www.bps.go.id. Available at: www.bps.go.id/
WTP
∫ Xf ( X ) dx
X
by assuming finite minimum and maximum
statictable/2009/02/20/1268/laju-pertumbuhan-penduduk-menurut-
provinsi.html (accesesed 5 August 2017). individual WTP as X and X , respectively, yields the result.)
USEPA. (2012) Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: From the obtained results, we know the estimates of choice
1990–2030. Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection probability for each policy q(X,a) at X = 0, 24,000 rupiahs, 48,000
Agency.
Yuan Y and Yabe M (2014a) Residents’ preferences for household kitchen rupiahs, and 96,000 rupiahs. This identifies the distribution of the
waste source separation services in Beijing: A choice experiment cumulative marginal WTP distribution F(X) piecewise at these
approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public values of X as well as X = −∞ and X = +∞, namely, F ( −∞ ) = 0
Health 12: 176–190.
and F ( ∞ ) = 1 . The average WTP can be decomposed at these
Yuan Y and Yabe M (2014b) Residents’ willingness to pay for household
kitchen waste separation services in Haidian and Dongcheng districts, values of X as:
Beijing city. Environments 1: 190–207.
Yuan Y and Yabe M (2015) Residents’ preferences for household kichen 4 F ( X i +1 )
waste source separation services in Beijing: A choice experiment
approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public ∑ ∫
i =0 F ( X i )
F −1 (φ ) dφ
Health 12: 176–190.
Zhang DQ, Tan SK and Gersberg RM (2010) Municipal solid waste manage-
ment in China: Status, problems and challenges. Journal of Environmental where X0 = −∞ , X1 = 0, X2 = 24,000 rupiahs, X3 = 48,000 rupiahs,
Management 91: 1623–1633. X4 = 96,000 rupiahs and X = ∞ 5. Because the cumulative distri-
Zhuang Y, Wu SW, Wang YL, et al. (2008) Source separation of household
bution F is monotonically increasing in X, it must be that:
waste: A case study in China. Waste Management 28: 2022–2030.

4 F ( X i +1 ) 4
Appendix ∑ ∫
i =0 F ( X i )
F −1 (φ ) dφ ≥ ∑X  F ( X
i =0
i i +1 ) − F ( X i )
Derivation of average WTP
Here we provide the derivation of the average WTP for accepting where the right-hand side provides the lower bound of the aver-
a policy, as well as its lower bound. Let f(X|a) be the density of age WTP for the policy acceptance.