Keywords
LOGIT
willingness to pay
consumer surplus
maximum likelihood
How to Cite
Abstract
In the present study, using the referendum contingent valuation method (RCVM), an economic valu- ation was carried out to implement a recycling system. For this, the population of the municipality of Texcoco was taken as a case study, to which a simple random sampling method, at the level of household, was applied with a confidence level of 95 %, resulting in a total sample of 402 house- holds. Results show that more than 90 % of heads of households are aware of the garbage problem. However, 70 % of respondents know very little about recycling and almost 100 % of them think it is necessary to set up a recycling system. Moreover, by applying the RECVM, and by adjusting a binary LOGIT model, a weekly willingness to pay (WTP) per house hold equal to $27.18 was esti- mated. As a result, total benefits of $1,295,915 were calculated per week. The model coefficients were estimated using maximum likelihood.
References
Agüero, A. A., Carral, M., Sauad, J. J., & Yazlle L. L. (2005). Aplica¬ción del método de valoración contingente en la evaluación del sistema de gestión de residuos sólidos domiciliarios en la ciudad de Salta, Argentina. Revista Iberoamericana de Eco-nomía Ecológica, 2, 37–44. http://ddd.uab.cat/pub/revibec/13902776v2a4.pdf
Alianza Tex (14 de junio de 2010). http://www.alianzatex.com
Azqueta, O. D. (1994). Valoración económica de la calidad ambiental (1a ed.). Madrid, España: Ed. McGraw-Hill.
Cook, D., Duckworth, W. M., Kaiser, M. S., Meeker, W. Q., & Stephenson, W. R. (2001). Resampling methods for inference. USA: Iowa State University
El Universal (25 de marzo de 2009). http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/ciudad/93721.html.com
Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002).Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hanemann, M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(1), 332–341. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1240800
Ibarrarán, V. M. E., Islas, C. I., & Cuevas, E. M. (2003) Valoración económica del impacto ambiental del manejo de residuos sólidos municipales: Estudio de caso Gaceta Ecológica, abril-junio, 67, 69–82. http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=53906706
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). (2005). Principales resultados por localidad. http://inegi.org.mx
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). Base de datos (1998-2008). Medio ambiente, asentamientos y actividades humanas, residuos, sólidos urbanos, recolección. http://inegi.org.mx
Jenkins, R. R., Martínez, S. A., Palmer, K., & Podolsky, M. J. (2000). The determinants of household recycling: A material specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C.
Terra Latinoamericana, 28 (3), 255–263. http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=57316064008
Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J., & Common, M. (2003). Natural Resource and Environmental Economics (3a ed.). United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
Tudela, M. J.W. (2008). Estimación de la disponibilidad a pagar de los habitantes de la ciudad de Puno por el tratamiento de aguas servidas. CIES. Economía y Sociedad, 69, 73–83. http://cies.org.pe/files/economia-sociedad/E-y-S-69-09-tudela.pdf
Tudela, M. J. W., Martínez, D. M. A., Valdivia, A. R., Portillo, V. M., & Romo, L. J. L. (2009). Modelos de elección discreta en la valoración económica de áreas naturales protegidas. Revista Mexicana de Economía Agrícola y de los Recursos Naturales, 2, 7–29. http://www.chapingo.mx/revistas/remecaren/contenido.php?id_articulo=851?id_revistas=7?id_revista_numero=83
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2012 Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente