Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

An analysis of household acceptance of curbside recycling scheme in

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Irina Safitri Zen a, *, Chamhuri Siwar b
a
Centre for Innovative Planning and Development (CIPD), Facuty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
b
Institute for Environment and Sustainable Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (National University of Malaysia), 43600 UKM Bangi,
Selangor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study explored and analyzed household acceptance of the curbside recycling scheme (CRS) in
Available online 24 February 2015 selected residential areas in Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory (KLFT), Malaysia where the number of drop-
off recycling facilities are limited. The analysis identified the socio-economic factors that affect the re-
Keywords: spondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for CRS. A survey using standardized questionnaires of the
Curbside recycling contingent valuation method (CVM) was administered to 460 households. The proposed scheme
Willingness to pay (WTP)
received a positive response with high willingness of residents to separate (90%) but low WTP (34%) for
Contingent valuation method (CVM)
the scheme charges. Despite the average of WTP curbside recycling charges of MYR88.80 added to
Recycling facilities
Source separation
household annual tax has translated into MYR7.40 per month (USD 2.50), the study revealed various
Solid waste management issues to improve existing recycling facilities with the solid waste management (SWM) and recycling
practices. The analysis further revealed that CRS gained support from the Chinese who practice recycling
and also from older age groups with the involvement of other family members such as a father/husband
and adult and household who has the right attitude towards recycling. It showed the demand for more
convenient recycling services which is an improvement from drop-off recycling facilities or a public
recycling facilities to a private recycling services at the household level. Finally, CRS has potential
application in the middle-high income residential areas of Bangsar and Wangsa Maju.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Household recycling activity in Malaysia is still sporadic and
concentrated mainly in the urban and sub-urban areas. It is sup-
ported by public recycling facilities as part of the Second National
Recycling Campaign that was launched in 2000 by the Ministry of
Housing and Local Government. At the same time, solid waste
management (SWM) underwent a privatization process in 1999
which involved private concessionaire in recycling campaign.
As an effort to encourage household recycling practice, gov-
ernment provided the public with recycling facilities. Statistical
records showed that 62 and 1000 recycle bins were distributed
respectively in Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory (KLFT) and in the
other 13 states of Malaysia as part of the recycling campaign
(Annual Statistical Year Book, 2004). The 120-L recycle bins were
located at public spaces such as shopping malls, petrol stations,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: irinasafitri@utm.my, irinasafitri@gmail.com (I.S. Zen), csiwar@
ukm.my (C. Siwar).
post offices, institutions, etc. with scheduled collection carried out
by the Alam Flora Sdn Bhd (AFSB). The company is a private con-
sortium of solid waste management covering three states, KLFT,
Selangor and Perak States. The ratio of recycle bins to population in
KLFT is 1:22,247 per inhabitant (Zen, 2006). The number of recycle
bins for KLFT were increased to 100 for KLFT and 2,470 for the other
parts of the country in 2011 (SWM and Public Cleansing Corpora-
tion 2011) (www.sisa.my2012).
The inadequacy of the recycle bins has been reported in several
studies (Chenayah, Agamuthu, & Takeda, 2007; Ibrahim, Aliagha, &
Khoo, 2000; Octania, 2005; Zen, 2006). The method known as
drop-off recycling is the least convenient recycling method (Lund,
1992) that largely depends on household participation (Sidique,
Lupi, & Joshi, 2010). Nevertheless, recycling activity requires indi-
vidual investment of time, space, money and effort beside their
knowledge and attitude towards recycling. Personal barriers in
performing recycling activity include ’not enough time’, ’lack of
space to store the recyclables' or external factors such as ’too few
drop-off sites' and ’inconvenient recycling locations' have been
identified in several studies (Chenayah et al., 2007; Ibrahim et al.,
2000; Octania, 2005; Zen, 2006; Zen, Noor, & Yusof, 2014).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.01.014
0197-3975/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255
Complementing the drop-off recycling facilities, the nationwide
campaign provides recycling centres (RC) or buy back centers (BBC)
with monetary incentives for recyclable items. The RC/BBC are
mostly located at selected densely populated and middle-high in-
come residential areas in urban areas. Previously, there were thir-
teen (13) RC/BBC that consisted of six permanent RC/BBC and seven
mobile RC/BBC under the AFSB concession area (Alam Flora, 2009).
Some of the mobile RC/BBC had served the recycling activity by
community-based organizations (CBO's), schools, institutions and
non-government organizations (NGO's) as an additional source of
income to fund their social activities (Zen, 2006, 2007). Presently,
there are 599 communities RC/BBC for the whole states
(www.sisa.my2012).
Though various recycling facilities are provided, household's
response to the various stimuli of pre-environmental behavioral
change is complex. Some research has reported the role of in-
centives to induce environmentally responsible behavior (Stern,
1999; Wyposal, 1989). In contrast, other research claims that
incentive-based approach creates the challenge of forming intrinsic
motives of pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling behavior
(Frey & Oberholzer-Gee, 1996). This study covers the influence of
attitude on CRS in order to gain a better understanding of the
acceptance or otherwise of the new proposed household recycling
facilities.
Recycling is one of the important methods of diverting the
increasing amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW) that cannot be
fully deposited in the available landfills. In Malaysia, from a total
291 landfill sites in April 2007 (Yahaya, 2008), about 80% of them
reached their maximum capacity by 2010 (Alam Flora, 2008) and
112 (38.5%) were not in operation with only 10 sanitary landfills
being in operation (Yahaya, 2008). To achieve a developed country
status by 2020, recycling target of Malaysia was set at 22%
(Malaysia, 2006). However, the recycling rate recorded in KLFT is
only 1% (UNEP 2004) and 5% at the national level (Agamuthu,
Fauziah, & Kahlil, 2009; Agamuthu, Fauziah, & Khidzir, 2009;
Malaysia, 2006). However, this figure did not capture recycling
works being actively conducted by the informal sector. This activity
creates a challenge in profiling the country's SWM.
The Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act 2007
(Act 672) came into force in 2012 and stated the requirement of
source separation by households (Yahaya, 2012). Even though
waste separation is not yet enforced, the main intention of
increasing household recycling participation becomes urgent due
to the annual increase in waste generation. It was estimated that
solid waste generation in Malaysia is more than 25,800 tonnes/day
and it will reach 30,000 tonnes/day by 2020 (Yusuf, 2013). In 2005,
solid waste generation in KLFT was 3478 tonnes/day and is ex-
pected to rise to 3200 tonnes/day in 2017 (Agamuthu, Fauziah,
Khidzir, & Aiza, 2007). The per capita solid waste generation in
KLFT alone is about 1.62 kg/capita/day, with the national average
being 0.8e0.9 kg/capita/day (Osman Saeed, Nasir Hassan, &
Mujeebu, 2009).
The composition data of recyclable items collected shows the
following: 55% by scavengers in landfills, 30% recycling by com-
munities and 15% by educational institutions (Alam Flora, 2004).
Though the data indirectly portrays a low quality of recyclable
items from the landfill, it indicates domination of the informal
sector in Malaysia recycling scenario. The informal sector recycling
practices in Malaysia are from door-to-door itinerant recycling
buyers, waste collection workers doing segregation during their
works and scavenging activity in landfills (Siwar, 2008).
Informal sector recycling is common in many developing
countries and play an important role in their waste management
scenario (Medina, 2000; Ojeda-Benitez et al., 2002). A study of Zen
(2007) in KLFT found out that 31% of households have favorable
249
attitudes towards door-to-door itinerant buyers compared to 23%
favoring drop-off recycling provided by the government. It could be
said that informal recycling helps in initiating the development of
household recycling practice and creates recycling norms in the
society. The preference towards itinerant recycling buyers was
probably due to monetary incentives received and convenience as
one of the factors affecting recycling behavior from various studies
(Medina, 2000; Ojeda-Benitez et al., 2002; Stern, 1999; Wysopal
1989).
Other studies on household recycling conducted in KLFT iden-
tified 19% of households separating recyclable items into separate
plastic bags aside their garbage bins on voluntary basis (Zen, 2007).
Another study showed the need of recycling facilities at the
household level in order to encourage them to participate in
recycling and minimize their time (Kuo & Perrings, 2010). Inter-
estingly, the door-to-door itinerant buyers that mainly focused on
the sales of recycled items have the capacity to provide the con-
venience household recycling facility.
Curbside recycling has been known as one of the effective ways
to reduce household cost of recycling by reducing inconvenience in
recycling and it consumes less time (Aadland & Caplan, 1999;
Jenkins, Salvador, Martinez, Palmer, & Podolsky, 2000). Compared
to drop-off recycling, accessibility to curbside recycling has signif-
icant and substantial positive effect on the percentage of re-
cyclables collected (Bardos et al., 1990; Jenkins et al., 2000). A
combination of several recycling methods or facilities such as
curbside recycling, economic incentives and drop-off recycling has
a positive effect on household recycling participation (Hong &
Adams, 1993; Jenkins et al., 2000; Tiller, Jakus, & Park, 1997).
Considering the various recycling facilities and practices in this
study area, the proposed CRS conducted will explore the adaptation
of CRS into the existing solid waste management system.
The identification of household's support and acceptance to-
wards the CRS is important (Aadland & Caplan, 2003). It is an effort
to reduce misjudgments that led to poor facilities/scheme design
and performance (Altaf & Hughes, 1994) with the additional high
operational cost (Jenkins, Martinez, Plamer, & Podolsky, 2003). CRS
design varies in terms of frequencies of collection, mandatory
versus voluntary separation, whether it is part of the waste
collection system, type of collection containers of recycle bin and
type of recycled material collected (Bouman, Goodwin, Jones, &
Weaver, 1998). CRS also varies on the community level due to dif-
ferences in the socioeconomic demography background (Guagnano
et al., 1995; Mattsson, Berk, & Clarkson, 2003). Preference of CRS is
found in landed or single house building compared to high rise
housing areas (McQuaid & Murdoch, 1996).
The contingent valuation (CV) method was applied to capture
the passive use values of CRS as an essential aspect in the con-
ceptual framework of CRS. The passive use values of CRS involved
the environmental values embedded in the goods offered (Carson,
2012). The approach that has direct elicitation of consumer pref-
erence and willingness to pay (WTP) has emerged as one of the
approaches to address this shortcoming (Carson, 2012; Mitchell &
Carson, 1989). Several studies on the WTP of CRS (Aadland &
Caplan, 1999, 2003; Blaine, Lichtkoppler, Jones, & Zondag, 2005;
Huhtala, 1996; Jenkins et al., 2000; Lake, Bateman, & Parfitt,
1996) identified socioeconomic characteristics, awareness and at-
titudes of households as contributors to the WTP. Other studies
recognized the elderly person's willingness to pay for curbside
recycling (Boyer, 2006).
CV studies conducted on solid waste and recycling services are
limited in Malaysia. Previous studies (Afroz & Masud, 2011; Jamal,
2000; Mourato, 1999) were inconclusive with regards to solid
waste and recycling services. A study by Jamal (2000) on the
acceptance of recycling facilities in Kajang area, Selangor State
250 I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255
found out that households put a high value in solid waste man-
agement and would be willing to pay a premium for more frequent
collections and better waste transport and disposal methods.
However, they would not necessarily be willing to pay for recycling
facilities. Another study by Afroz and Masud (2011) found that
households in Kuala Lumpur were not willing to pay additional
charges for recycling collection and recycle bins provided by the
mandatory source separation. These two studies portrayed the
negative response towards CRS. However, they were not specific
with regards to public recycling facilities such as recycle bins and
the RC/BBC.
Though there is a serious effort and commitment from the
government to provide recycling facilities at the public level as part
of the improvement of SWM, further studies need to be carried out
to identify households' response to the existing recycling program
that largely depends on the bring-in system and how the house-
holds perceive the adoption of CRS as part of the existing SWM
system in the country.
Survey design and methodology
Three middle-high income residential areas in KLFT were
selected: Bangsar, Taman Tun Dr Ismail (TTDI) and Wangsa Maju
that are dominated by landed properties. Besides the limited
number of public recycling facilities, the three areas have been
selected from the AFSB list of recycling/buyback centers consisting
of two fixed recycling/buyback centers and eight mobile recycling/
buyback centers (Alam Flora, 2009). In addition to that, there are
active community recycling activities supported by local NGOs and
residential associations.
The socioeconomic and demographic profile of the study area,
according to Annual Malaysia Statistical Book (2004) are as follows:
the number of male and female residents was 64,005 (49%) and
66,618 (51%), the racial composition was made up of 38% Malays
(Bumiputeras), 43% Chinese, 10% Indians and 9% other races. The
composition of the age of the residents showed that the highest
percentage was in the 15e39 age bracket, 46%, 27% of the residents,
were between 0 and 14 years old, 23% were 40e64 years old and 4%
were above 65 years. The monthly gross income of households in
residential areas in Kuala Lumpur was MYR 4105 (US$1 ¼ 368.33)
(Malaysia, 2001).
The sample size determination was generated from the total
populations of the three residential areas of 130,623 (Annual
Statistical Year Book, 2004). By using households comprising of
five family members as a unit of study, the target population
identified was 26,125 householders. Using the sample size gener-
ation formula from Mendenhall, Ott, and Scheaffer (1996) and to
fulfill the analysis requirement, 460 sample sizes were used.
Households function as decision makers in response to the curbside
recycling services offered. It is a unit of analysis on the payment
vehicle selected, annual assessment tax, which is on a household
basis (Wilks, 1990). The head of the household was prioritized to
respond to the questionnaire. However, the wife/mother or any
young adult over 18 years could be involved as a respondent when
there was difficulty in interviewing the head of the family. Face-to-
face or personal interviews were conducted from house to house.
The selection of houses near the recycling facility was done
randomly.
The CV survey method is a tool to evaluate the willingness to pay
(WTP) of the public goods and services and was developed by
Mitchell and Carson (1989). Normally, difficulties in valuing the
services proposed hampered most of the CV studies conducted
where there is hypothetical bias of scenario services offered in the
questionnaire (Hoehn, 1991). Difficulties also arise if the re-
spondents are not familiar with the scenario services to be valued.
In order to reduce this difficulty, the CRS proposed in the ques-
tionnaire will contradict with the existing practices of drop-off
recycling as an effort to highlight the goodness of CRS. It will help
in reducing the psychological burden of respondents in making
decision and reduce the hypothetical bias.
The proposed charges of CRS might pose a challenge to the
existing practice that provides monetary incentives such as the
recycling/back center and the business oriented door-to-door
itinerant recycle buyers. The last one, which offered convenience
in will recycling mimic the curbside recycle proposed in the study.
It has been widely known that situational factors, such as conve-
nience, positively relate to the household participation (Bowman
et al., 1998). Thus, the study will look at the possibilities on the CRS
acceptance compared to the existing public recycling facility and
other various recycling services.
The WTP for CRS correlates with the issue of charges. Currently,
the solid waste management charge in Malaysia is part of the
annual assessment fee and varies according to residential house
size. The charges translate into a monthly flat rate of MYR10
(US$3.33) that cover household solid waste collection for three
times a week, public cleansing, and garden and bulky items
collection on call basis (Alam Flora, 2004; Sakawi, 2011). However,
there is no budgetary allocation dedicated to recycling collection.
This payment vehicle is clearly stated in the WTP question of the
hypothetical scenario of the CV survey. It is different with other
scenario studies of WTP by Othman (2002) and Afroz and Masud
(2011) who put the additional charges as part of improvement of
solid waste collection charges.
In a process to identify households' acceptance of curbside
recycling, the hypothetical market in the questionnaire of CV sur-
veys was started with three stages of questions; i. Willingness to
separate the recyclable items, ii. Support of curbside recycling and
iii. WTP for curbside recycling. The three stages of questions are
detailed as follows:
1. Willingness to separate (WTS)
The statement: “At this time the recycling program requires you
to bring recyclable items to the recycling center or public recycle
bin. The additional curbside recycles collection at home can save
your time and make recycling convenient for you”.
Question: “If local authority will come and collect your recy-
clable items once a week at home with a specially designated
recycle bin provided for each house, will you separate your recy-
clable item?”
Answer: Yes/No.
2. Willingness to support (WTSu) curbside recycling collection
The special curbside recycling collection at home with free
recycling bin, collected once a week and mandatory separation will
improve the effectiveness of household recycling activity. For your
information, the existing solid waste collection at this time is
provided from your annual assessment tax and does not include the
special recyclable collection.
Question: Will you be willing to support and pay extra charges
to get an additional recyclable items collection once a week with a
compulsion to do source separation?
Answer: Yes/No
3. Willingness to pay (WTP) for curbside recycling collection
Question: How much additional payment of the existing annual
assessment tax are you willing to pay for extra curbside recyclable
collection at home?
 I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255 251

Table 1 results reflected good attitudes towards recycling (Gamba &

Variable descriptions. Oskamp, 1994; Oskamp et al., 1998).
Variable Explanation Values The second question required gaining respondents' support to
Willingness The willingness to pay Numeric (MYR)
pay additional charges for the CRS. The result showed that 41% of
value for curbside recycle the respondents (n ¼ 188) supported the service and agreed to pay
collection at home extra charges (Fig. 1b). It is a slightly smaller percentage when
(Malaysia Ringgit, MYR) compared with the 59% of the respondents (n ¼ 224) that had
Activezone Active recycling zone; 1 if active recycling zone (Bangsar
contrary opinions and refused to pay additional charges for the
Bangsar and Wangsa Maju. and Wangsa Maju have RC, FRC/
BBC, CBOs and NGOs), 0 otherwise curbside recycling scheme. The reasons for refusal to make addi-
(less active recycling zone pr tional payment on CRS are stated in Table 2. The result provided the
residential area in Taman Tun Dr. challenge for CRS integration into the existing solid waste man-
Ismail which has one CBOs and
agement practices in Malaysia that at the same time reflect on how
MRC)
Mandatory Mandatory recyclable 1 if mandatory recyclable
the society value their recycling practices.
separation separation, Some of the respondents believed that they were doing their
0 otherwise duty to the environment through sorting of the recyclable items
Collect1x Once a week of recycled 1 if once a week recycle collection, (Table 2. No.1). Even though they refused to pay, the result showed
collection 0 otherwise
households' genuine interest and excitement in recycling. This kind
Age Age of respondent Ordinal, 1(18e38), 2(39e56), 3
(Three age group in years) (>57) of feeling has been shown in other studies (Andreoni, 1990; Nyborg
Wife Mother/Wife 1 if mother or wife, & Rege, 2003). These results also challenge the effort to provide
0 otherwise (Father and Adult) exclusive private services for the convenience of households recy-
Educ Education level of Ordinal, 1 (Not School), 2 (Primary cling facilities (Ostrum, 1990). The detailed aspects of private and
respondent School), 3 (Lower Certificate of
Education, LCE), 4 (Malaysian
public community recycling programs has been discussed
Certificate of Education, MCE), 5 (Kipperberg and Larson (2012).
(Malaysian Higher School ‘Private services, making profits’ and ‘Recyclables are saleable’
Certificate, MHSC), 6 (Diploma), are the two statements related to potential recycling as an eco-
7 (Undergraduate), 8 (Graduate).
nomic activity or the dominant thinking of the economist as stated
Chinrec Chinese respondents who 1 if Chinese respondents who are
recycle. practicing recycling, 0 otherwise by Samuelson (1954). These two statements also reflect the po-
Recimprt Respondents' attitude that Ordinal, 1 (Very Important)e6 (Not tential conflict of the existing norms developed by the current
recycling is important Very Important) recycling practices in the society known as “crowding-out effect”
Income Respondent's monthly Ordinal, 1 (<RM580), 2 (RM580- (Halvorsen, 2010). The statement ‘It should be part of the existing
income (RM/month) 1500), 3 (RM1501-2500), 4 (RM
2501-3500),
waste collection Kipperberg and Larson (2012)’’ might show the
5 (RM3501-4500), 6 (RM4501- respondent level of understanding that recycle material is part of a
5500), solid waste material or may also reflect their strategic behavior
7 (RM5501-6500), 8 (RM6501- (Table 2, No.3).
7500),
The third question of WTP was put to 188 respondents who
9 (RM7501-8500), 10 (RM8501-
9500), 11 (>9501) supported curbside recycling (Fig. 1c). There are 157 respondents
who stated their amount (Fig. 1d). On the average, the maximum
WTP amount stated by respondents as the additional amount of the
annual assessment household tax is MYR88.80/year (US$29.60) or
Answer: RM ______ (per annum).
MYR7.40/month (US$2.47) (Table 3). It is a payment for an upgra-
In general, the analysis of the study was conducted by using two
ded recycling service from public drop-off recycling facilities to
major statistical analytical approaches: i. Descriptive/exploratory
curbside household weekly recycling collection with recycle bins
analysis, and ii. Advanced statistical analysis. The first one was used
provided at the household level. The amount is close to the solid
to identify and explore the various reasons of non-supporters and
waste collection of MYR10/month (Sakawi, 2011). The first CV study
mean amount of WTP in order to analyze the respondent's accep-
to estimate the WTP for solid waste collection in Malaysia found a
tance and adaptability of CRS. The second one will use the advanced
monthly mean value of MYR16 (US$5.33) per household (Mourato,
statistical analysis for the log-linear regression model of WTP for
1999). This result indicated the respondents' effort to relate the
CRS. The list of variables used in the model are listed in Table 1. The
proposed curbside recycling collection with the existing monthly
variables include the availability of public recycling facility in the
waste collection charge.
three residential study areas, the socioeconomic status and recy-
Though the open ended approach applied in this study provided
cling attitudes. The variable deployed in the model tries to figure
a wide range of WTP values from MYR2.00 (US$0.63) to MYR600.00
out the profile for households who have stated their WTP amount
(US$158.31), there is the need to gather the information from the
for curbside recycling collection and their willingness to support
demand side of the initial study conducted. This approach is known
the program.
as a method with high-end anchoring bias (Aadland & Caplan,
1999). Interval approach was applied to reduce the chance of
Result and discussion over-estimating the value of curbside recycling. High amount of
WTP for curbside recyling has affect by the income level but small
Acceptance of curbside recycling: willingness to separate and amount of cursbide recycling has found in study by Aadland and
willingness to support Caplan (2003).
The calculations further relate the curbside recycling charges
The first question measured the households' willingness to with respondent's income. The average monthly income of re-
separate (WTS) the recyclable items as the basic requirements of spondents in this area was MYR5700.00 and waste collection
CRS (Fig. 1a). Respondents indicated positive response towards charge granted from the annual household assessment tax was
recycling by showing that 90% of the respondents (n ¼ 412) are MYR10.00 (US$3.33) per household per month. The resulting
willing to separate if curbside recycling facilities are provided. The average of WTP for the three residential areas was MYR7.40
252 I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255

Fig. 1. The framework of the acceptance of CRS.

Table 2 Huppert, 1987). This was found to be MYR 20 (US$6.67) in a WTP

Reasons for non-support of Curbside Recycling Scheme (n ¼ 224).
List of reasons Frequency
(n ¼ 224)
1. I already support the environment by doing 47
source separation.
2. It should be part of the existing waste 40
collection.
3. No incentives given. 8 4
4. Government should take the responsibility. 27
5. Other reasons stated are ‘Use the existing 103
facilities’, ‘Private service, making profit from
recycling activity’, ‘Part of the annual tax’,
‘Recyclables are saleable’ and etc.).
(US$2.47). The addition of waste collection charge to the average
WTP of curbside recycling totaled MYR17.40. That amount is 0.3% of
the average income in the respective area. The result is very low
compared to 1.7% in a similar study by Afroz and Masud (2011) in
selected residential areas in Kuala Lumpur.
The highest monthly CRS charges as separate charges to the
existing waste collection system is depicted in TTDI area which is
MYR 8.67 (US$2.89) (Table 3). It is followed by Wangsa Maju MYR
7.12 (US$2.37) and Bangsar MYR5.92 (US$1.97). The monthly rate
charges for CRS as a single entity was reported at US$2.05 per
month in a WTP study for CRS in the United States (Cameron &
study where CRS charges is part of the waste collection charges
Percentage (%) (Afroz & Masud, 2011). The study required mandatory source sep-
aration scenario for CRS proposed in Wangsa Maju and the other
22 four residential areas in KLFT. If our CRS charges results combined
with the flat rate charges of the existing solid waste service, MYR10,
18
the CRS charges ranged from MYR 15.92 to MYR 18.67. An earlier CV
study conducted in the Kajang residential area, Selangor State and
12 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia found out that the re-
46 spondents were not willing to pay extra for recycling facilities
(Jamal, 2000). The minimum amount of household WTP annually
was MYR2.00 (US$0.67) and the maximum amount was
MYR600.00 (US$200.00). The most frequent choice for WTP was
pegged at MYR120.00 (US&40.00) per year or MYR10.00 (US$3.33)
per month.
The multiple log-linear regression of WTP curbside recycling
The descriptive statistics for variables used in this study are
shown in Table 4. The model of log linear regression that estimated
the value of household's WTP for curbside recycling collection is
statistically significant at 0.01 level of significance
(p ¼ 0.002 < 0.01) (Table 5).
The goodness-of-fit test to estimate the log linearity of our
multiple regression models showed the adjusted R2 value as 0.163.

Table 3
Mean amount of WTP for curbside recycling (n ¼ 188).

Research Means (MYR) Means (MYR) Sample Standard deviation (MYR) Median (MYR) Min (MYR) Max (MYR)
zone area annually Monthly (N ¼ 188) annually annually annually annually

Bangsar 70.98 5.92 55 81.54 50.00 2.00 360.00

Wangsa Maju 85.46 7.12 60 90.40 60.00 2.00 400.00
TTDI 104.98 8.67 73 108.22 60.00 5.00 600.00
Average 88.80 7.40 e 95.95 e e e
 I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255 253

The low adjusted R2 statistic may be due to the various methods of Table 5
recycling used by the respondents; recycling/buy-back centres, Estimation for independent and dependent variable of Ordinary Least Square Model.

community's recycling, etc. Low adjusted R2 was found in com- Model Unstandardized coefficient t Significance levels
munity recycling programs studied by Kipperberg and Larson b Standard error
(2012), WTP for improvement of solid waste service in Kath-
Constant 0.322 0.075 4.304 0.000
mandu (Flinthoff, 2002).
Activezone 0.049 0.029 1.718 0.088**
The estimated coefficients are statistically significant at 0.1, 0.5 Mandatory 0.016 0.027 0.583 0.561
and 0.01 levels. The conditional index value was used to measure Collect1x 0.018 0.027 0.602 0.548
the multi-colinearity purposely to measure the sameness of inde- Age 0.048 0.021 2.298 0.023**
Wife 0.053 0.032 1.687 0.094**
pendent variable measure and the dependent variable with defying
Educ 0.061 0.010 0.603 0.548
the impact (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). Conditional index showed Chinrec 0.136 0.041 3.283 0.001***
the value of 16.852 which is less than 20, the standard value of no Recimprt 0.012 0.008 1.656 0.010*
multi-collinearity among independent variables. Income 0.007 0.006 1.143 0.255
About 16.3% variance of dependent variable was explained by R2 ¼ 0.163
2
Adjusted R ¼ 0.112
five (5) independent socio-economic and demographic variables:
Error estimation standardization ¼ 0.16
(i) Chinese group respondents who practice recycling, (ii) older age Average dependent variable ¼ 0.30
group, (iii) active recycling area, (iv) adult and father, and (v) atti- F-value ¼ 3.187
tudes towards the importance of recycling to the environment. Durbin Watson ¼ 1.621
Conditional index ¼ 16.852
The Chinese respondents variable who performed recycling
Dependent variable (Y) ¼ log willingness to pay
with the highest significant level at 0.001 showed their support and
demand for curbside recycling. It is an improvement from a drop- *** Significant at level 0.01 (1%).
** Significant at level 0.1 (10%).
off recycling method that might have a combination of altruistic
* Significant at level 0.5 (5%).
(saving the environment) and egoistic factor (convenient recycling Note: Although 460 respondents were surveyed, about 188 respondents only
facilities). answered for the willingness to pay. However, due to the individuals failing to
A study by Ewing (2001) shows that three normative factors answer at least one of the dependent variable, finally only 157 respondents were
used in this study (Fig. 1). See Table 2 for detailed description of the variables.
(the expectations of household members, friends and neighbors),
altruistic factor (that recycling helps protect the environment), and
egoistic factor (that recycling is inconvenient) appear similar to
households' participation in curbside recycling. Conversely, re- The results showed the household preferences to the curbside
cyclers who does not have altruistic factors were found to be willing recycling compared to the current practices.
to pay for curbside recycling service in a study by Aadland and The incentives offered by RBBC and community recycling ac-
Caplan (1999). The study identified complex issues surrounding tivity may not be perceived as sustainable facilities. It can be said
the WTP for curbside recycling. that the situational factors of convenience offered in this study
Father or husband and adult tend to support these facilities might contribute to WTP for curbside recycling as it was found that
compared to a wife or mother. It is because father/husband and situational factor might override pro-environmental attitude as a
adults are among the group that spends more time and effort in precursor for pro-environmental behavior (Oskamp, 1977).
recycling (Grieser & Rawlins, 1996). Curbside recycling will reduce The older age group (age group 3) portrayed positive sign to-
time spent in recycling. The gender difference in solid waste recy- wards curbside recycling compared to younger age groups (age
cling has been studied by Muller and Schienberg (1997). groups 1 and 2). It is well understood that older age groups found it
The third significant variable showed the demand of WTP for more difficult to perform drop-off recycling. A study by Boyer
curbside recycling services in the active recycling residential area; (2006) found out that 45þ year olds were the most willing to pay
Bangsar and Wangsa Maju. These have various drop off recycling for the weekly curbside service at $9.16/month compared to the
facilities such as recycle bins and recycle centers that offer in- younger age group.
centives. The Bangsar area is known to have an active community The socioeconomic variables such as income and education
recycling collection arrangement that gives economic incentives to were not significant to support the curbside recycling service in our
the resident associations and other communities. This study por- study and have been corroborated in a study by Lake et al. (1996). In
trayed the situational factors of convenience in curbside recycling contrast, household income positively affects household's WTP for
dominating the altruism factors gained from doing community drop-off recycling in rural areas, but not on suburban areas (Tiller
recycling and the economic incentives. The challenge is still the et al., 1997). The variable of mandatory source separation was not
need for more time and effort spent at source separation by indi- significant in this study as was found in a study by Afroz and Masud
vidual households (Bruvoll et al., 2002; Morris & Holthausen 1994). (2011). Perceived recycling as a burdensome activity added to the
current public recycling activity that requires bring-in-system as
found in a study by Zen (2007) might affect this result.
Table 4 The result of the study showed the household's preference for
Descriptive statistics.
the improvement of current recycling facility. It showed the
Variable Means Standard deviation Minimum Maximum inconvenient aspect of household recycling practice and drop-off
Log willingness 0.30 0.18 0.16 1.44 recycling facility, recycle bins and recycle buy back center (RBBC).
Activezone e e 0 1 Though, incentive is given in RBBC, it can be argued that small
Mandatory e e 0 1 monetary incentives may not be enough to sustain recycling
Collect1x e e 0 1
participation in the long term. Furthermore, household curbside
Age 1.60 0.66 1 3
Wife e e 0 1 recycling needs a knowledge-based strategy to continuously
Educ 5.43 1.63 1 8 educate the households (Bouman et al., 1998).
Chinrec e e 0 1 The similar study conducted by Blaine et al. (2005) in United
Recimprt 3.00 1.70 1 6 State has potential for policy implication in cite the CVM results to
Income 4976.61 2740.47 1 11
influence the recycling program decisions. Their study using
254 I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255
payment card as different forms of CVM method which offer more
thorough of socio-demographic variables associated with WTP. Our
study shows the support towards CRS as an option to be considered
to support the current voluntary recycling program. However,
further study may opt for different mode of CVM as found in Blaine
et al. (2005) to reveal more socio-economic factors involved.
The consistent and scheduled recycling collection at the curb is
important to reduce the problems related to the household recy-
cling such as minimum recycling storage capacity at home, the
aesthetics and the potential insects due to the long time spent
before collecting the recyclable items.
Having easy access to recycling program is an interrelated
mediator between socioeconomic factors and recycling practice
(Margai, 1997). Poor participation of households in recycling has
been reported in several studies (Chenayah et al., 2007; Octania,
2005; Omran, Mahmood, Abdul Aziz, & Robinson, 2009; Zen,
2006). This can be explained by difficulties in accessing public
recycling bins. The proposed curbside recycling services at the
household level will help in reducing the tension and barriers of
households performing recycling. The need for convenient factors
at the household level in doing recycling is important to boost the
recycling activities to achieve the sustainable waste management
(Agamuthu et al., 2007; Morrissey & Browne, 2004).
Conclusion
The proposed curbside recycling to improve the existing recy-
cling facilities has been investigated. The services can be an option
to the existing recycling scenario in urban area in Malaysia; the
informal recycling and community based recycling. Though, the
privatization process of SWM in this country affects the house-
holds' opinion on the SWM and the CRS proposed, the result of the
study shows the potential of CRS applied to encourage recycling
activity at the household level.
CRS support are from Chinese recyclers, older age group, father
and adult and other respondents who have developed the right
attitude towards recycling. It showed the demand for more
convenient recycling services which is an improvement from drop-
off recycling facilities or a public recycling facilities to a private
recycling services at the household level. This effort will accom-
odate the development of recycling norms to the society. Finally,
CRS has potential application in the middle-high income residential
areas of Bangsar and Wangsa Maju. It provides an option for waste
policy maker as a funding mechanism to improve the recycling
program in this country.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr Jamal Othman, from National
University of Malaysia for his insightful comments during the dis-
cussion leading to the development of questionnaire and statistical
analysis.
References
Aadland, D., & Caplan, A. J. (1999). Household valuation on curbside recycling.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(6), 781e799.
Aadland, D., & Caplan, A. J. (2003). Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with
detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 85(2), 492e502.
Afroz, R., & Masud, M. M. (2011). Using a contingent valuation approach for
improved SWM facility: evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Man-
agement, 31, 800e808.
Agamuthu, P., Fauziah, S. H., & Kahlil, K. (2009). Evolution of solid waste manage-
ment in Malaysia: impacts and implications of the solid waste bill, 2007. Journal
of Material Cycles Waste Management, 11, 96e103.
Agamuthu, P., Fauziah, S. H., & Khidzir, K. M. (2009). 3R related policies for sus-
tainable waste management in Malaysia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 1(2), 96e103.
Agamuthu, P., Fauziah, S. H., Khidzir, K. M., & Aiza, A. N. (2007). Sustainable waste
management e Asian perspectives. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, 5e7 September 2007, Chennai, India (pp.
15e26).
Alam Flora. (2004). 3R Annual Report 2004. 3R Department, Alam Flora Sdn. Bhd. Shah
Alam, Selangor.
Alam Flora. (2008). 3R Annual Report 2007. 3R Department, Alam Flora Sdn. Bhd. Shah
Alam, Selangor.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of
warmer-glow-giving. The Economic Journal, 100, 464e477.
Annual Statistical Year Book. (2004). Statistic department of Malaysia.
Bardos, P., Burton, J., Brulace, C. J., Derry, a r., Ikuwe, A., Pendle, W., et al. (1990).
Market barriers, materials reclamation and recycling. Stevenage: Warren Springs
Laboratory, Department of Trade and Industry.
Blaine, T. W., Lichtkoppler, F. R., Jones, K. R., & Zondag, R. H. (2005). An assessment
of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling; A comparison of pay-
ment card and a referendum approaches. Journal of Environmental Management,
76(1), 15e22.
Bouman, N., Goodwin, J., Jones, P., & Weaver, N. (1998). Sustaining recycling:
identification and application of limiting factors in kerbside recycling areas.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 5, 263e276.
Boyer, T. A. (2006). Talking Trash: Valuing household preferences for garbage and
recycling services bundles using a discrete choice experiment. In 2006 Annual
meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21074, American Agricultural Economics As-
sociation (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
Cameron, T. A., & Huppert, D. D. (1987). Efficient estimation methods for ‘Close
Ended’ contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistic, 69,
269e276.
Chenayah, S., Agamuthu, P., & Takeda, E. (2007). Multi-criteria modelling on recy-
cling of municipal solid waste in Subang Jaya. Malaysian Journal of Science,
26(1), 1e16.
Flinthoff, F. (2002). Household behaviour on solid waste management: a case of
Kathmandu Metropolitan City. In 2002 World Congress of Environmental and
Resource Economists, California, June 24e27.
Frey, B., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1996). The cost of price incentives: an empirical
analysis of motivation crowding-out. American Economic Review, 87, 746e755.
Gamba, R., & Oskamp, S. (1994). Factors influencing community residents' partici-
pation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behaviour,
26, 587e612.
Grieser, M., & Rawlins, B. (1996). Issues in urban and rural Environments: GreenCOM
gender reports. Washington.
Halvorsen, B. (August 2010). Effect of norms and policy incentives on household
recycling: An international comparison. Discussion Papers No. 627. Statistics
Norway, Research Department www.ssb.no.
Hoehn, J. P. (1991). Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy:
theory and methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 289e299.
Hong, S., & Adams, R. A. (1993). An economic analysis of household recycling of
solid wastes: the case of Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 25.
Huhtala, A. (1996). How much do money, inconvenience an polluion matter?
Analysing households' demand for large-scale recycling and incineration.
Journal of Environmental Management, 55, 27e38.
Ibrahim, M., Aliagha, G. U., & Khoo, G. S. (2000). Household recycling program: an
evaluation of its effectiveness. In The National Conference on urban Issues and
Challenges: Developing Solutions for the Cities, Universiti Putra Malaysia; May
8e9.
Jenkins, R. R., Martinez, S. A., Plamer, K., & Podolsky, M. J. (2003). The determinants
of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program fea-
tures and unit pricing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45,
294e318.
Jenkins, R. R., Salvador, A., Martinez, S. A., Palmer, K., & Podolsky, J. (2000). The
determinants of household recycling: A material specific analysis of recycling
program features and unit pricing. Discussion Paper 99-41-REV. Resources for
The Future. Washington D.C.
Kipperberg, G., & Larson, D. M. (2012). Heterogeneous preferences for community
recycling programs. Environmental and Resources Economic, 53(4), 577e604.
Lake, I. R., Bateman, I. J., & Parfitt, J. P. (1996). Assessing a kerbside recycling scheme:
a quantitative and willingness to pay case study. Journal of Environmental
Management, 46, 239e254.
Lund, H. F. (1992). The McGraw-Hill recycling hand book. McGraw Hill Pub.
Malaysia. (2001). The eight Malaysia plan (2001e2005). Kuala Lumpur: Government
Printed.
Malaysia. (2006). The ninth Malaysia plan (2006e2010). Kuala Lumpur: Government
Printed.
Mattsson, C. H., Berg, P. E. O., & Clarkson, P. A. (2003). The development of systems
for property close collection of recycable: experiences from Sweden and En-
gland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 38, 369e385.
McQuaid, R. W., & Murdoch, A. R. (1996). Recycling policy in areas of low income
and multi-storey housing. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
39(4), 545e562.
Medina, M. (2000). Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 31, 51e69.
 I.S. Zen, C. Siwar / Habitat International 47 (2015) 248e255
Mendenhall, W., Ott, L., & Scheaffer, R. L. (1996). Elementary survey sampling. Cali-
fornia: Dexburry Press.
Morrissey, A. J., & Browne, J. (2004). Waste management models and their appli-
cation to sustainable waste management. Waste Management, 24(3), 297e308.
Mourato, S. (1999). Household demand for improved solid waste management in
Malaysia. Paper presented in the Workshop on Economic Valuation of Envi-
ronmental Resource, organized by EPU and DANCED, Renaissance Palm Garden
Hotel, Puchong, May 13e15.
Muller, & Schienberg. (1997). Gender and urban waste management. Paper presented
at the Gender, Technology and Development Conference, organized by TOOL/
TOOLCONSULT, Amsterdam.
Nyborg, K., & Rege, M. (2003). Does public policy crowd out private contributions to
public goods? Public Choice, 115(3), 397e418.
Octania, P. R. (2005). Household behaviour towards waste recycling in Ampang Jaya
and Subang Jaya, Selangor. Master Thesis. Faculty of Environment, Universiti
Putra Malaysia.
Omran, A., Mahmood, A., Abdul Aziz, H., & Robinson, G. M. (2009). Investigating
households attitude towards recycling of solid waste in Malaysia: a case study.
International Journal of Environmental Research, 3(2), 275e288.
Oskamp, S. (Ed.). (1977). Attitudes and opinions. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Oskamp, S., Rachel, L., Burkhardt, P., Schultz, W., Hurin, S., & Zelezny, L. (1998).
Predicting three dimensions of residential curbside recycling: an observational
study. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(2), 37e42.
Osman Saeed, M., Nasir Hassan, M., & Mujeebu, M. A. (2009). Assessment of
municipal solid waste generated and recyclable material's potential in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management, 29(2009), 2209e2213.
Othman, J. (2002). Household preferences for solid waste management in Malaysia.
EEPSEA Research Report 2002eRR8.
Sakawi, Z. (2011). Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: solution for
sustainable waste management. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental
Sanitation, 6(1), 29e38.
255
Sidique, S. F., Lupi, F., & Joshi, S. V. (2010). The effects of behaviour and attitudes on
drop-off recycling activities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 163e170.
Siwar, C. (2008). Solid waste management: recycling, green jobs and challenges in
Malaysia. In ILO Research Conference: Green Jobs for Asia & Pacific, Niigata, Japan,
21e23 April.
Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives and pro-environmental consumer
behaviour. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461e478.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). London:
Pearson Education Co.
Tiller, K. H., Jakus, P. M., & Park, W. M. (1997). Household willingness to pay for
drop-off recycling. Journal of Agricultural & Resources Economics, 22(2),
310e320.
Wilks, L. (1990). A survey of the contingent valuation method. Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Wyposal, W. (1989). Economic incentives improve voluntary efforts. Biocycle,
32e33.
www.sisa.my (update Mac 2009). http://www.sisa.my/cmssite/content.php?
cat¼207&pageid¼785&lang¼bm.
Yahaya, N. (2008). Solid waste management in Malaysia: policy, issues & strategies.
In EA-SWMC EU e Asia Solid Waste Management Cycle Conference. 23e28 Oct.
Casuaria Impiana Hotel, Perak.
Yahaya, N. (2012). Solid waste management in Malaysia: The way forward.
Zen, I. S. (2006). Kajian Amalan Kitar Semula Isirumah Di Kuala Lumpur: Ke Arah
pembaikan pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Perbandaran. PhD dissertation. Bangi,
Selangor: Pusat Pengajian Siswazah. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Zen, I. S. (2007). Amalan Kitar Semula Isirumah di Kuala Lumpur. Program Pengurusan
persekitaran. Pusat Pengajian Siswazah. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, ISBN
978-983-2975-96-0.
Zen, I. S., Noor, Z. Z., & Yusof, R. O. (2014). The profiles of household recyclers and
non-recyclers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International, 42(April),
83e89.