2016, Domingos - Monetizando os benefícios sociais da mineração em aterros Evidências de uma pesquisa de Avaliação Contingente em uma área rural na Grécia (1)

Prévia do material em texto

Waste Management
ÿ
New solid waste management policies around the world are 
advocating higher recycling/reuse targets for municipal and other
Kapur and Graedel, 2006; Quaghebeur et al., 2013; Hermann et al., 
2014), these landfills may also be a potential source of environmental 
contamination and nuisance and may occupy valuable land that 
could be utilized for other development purposes.
1. Introduction
However, nowadays there are thousands of uncontrolled and 
controlled landfills either operating or closed. For instance, Wagner 
and Raymond (2015), citing the work of Krook et al. (2012) and 
Ratcliffe et al. (2012), point out that in the EU alone there are an 
estimated 150,000–500,000 closed and active landfills containing 
around 30–50 billion m3 of waste. In Greece alone the amount of 
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfilled in 2010 was 4.2 million 
tonnes, equivalent to 81% of the total generated MSW (Bakas and 
Milios, 2013). Besides containing useful materials (eg
These impacts can be moderated using careful design and 
management; yet, they cannot be completely eliminated. As a result, 
it is generally perceived that even controlled landfills are related to 
a decline in the quality of life and the image of the surrounding area 
(known as ''stigma” effect), which, in turn, generates external costs 
(eg depreciation of land and property value) to host communities 
(eg Eshet et al., 2006).
The magnitude of the impacts is influenced among others by the 
location and the characteristics of the facilities, the requirements 
and enforcement of legislative framework, and the composition of 
waste (eg inert, municipal, hazardous, etc.) (Schollum, 2010) .
wastes and phasing out landfilling progressively for recoverable non-
hazardous waste (eg plastic, paper, metals, glass and organic 
materials). The implementation of these policies will minimize the 
amount of waste directed to landfills and, consequently, the 
associated impacts to natural and human environments in the future.
One option to tackle this problem and, at the same time, 
generate social benefits through reduced environmental impacts, 
job creation, etc., is to excavate the waste from the landfills and sort
It is widely recognized that solid waste disposal facilities are 
often associated with environmental impacts and nuisance, and 
even threats to human health and safety (Ghanbari et al., 2012).
article info abstract
Accepted 16 December 2015
ÿ Corresponding author.
Available online 29 December 2015
Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129
E-mail address: damigos@metal.ntua.gr (D. Damigos).
Keywords:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.012 
0956-053X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Heroon Polytechniou str., 15780 Zografou Campus, Greece
Economic assessment
Landfill mining
Contingent valuation
Articlehistory:
Social benefits
Received 18 September 2015
Revised 10 December 2015
Monetizing the social benefits of landfill mining: Evidence 
from a Contingent Valuation survey in a rural area in Greece
Despite the emerging global attention towards promoting waste management policies that reduce 
environmental impacts and conserve natural resources, landfilling still remains the dominant waste 
management practice in many parts of the world. Owing to this situation, environmental burdens are 
bequeathed to and large amounts of potentially valuable materials are lost for future generations. As a 
means to undo these adverse effects a process known as landfill mining (LFM) could be implemented 
provided that eco nomic feasibility is ensured. So far, only a few studies have focused on the economic 
feasibility of LFM from a private point of view and even fewer studies have attempted to economically justify 
the need for LMF projects from a social point of view. This paper, aiming to add to the limited literature in 
the field, presents the results of a survey conducted in a rural district in Greece, by means of the Contingent 
Valuation method (CVM) in order to estimate society's willingness to pay for LFM programs. According to 
the empirical survey, more than 95% of the respondents recognize the need for LFM programs.
However, only one-fourth of the respondents are willing to pay through increased taxes for LFM, owing 
mainly to economic depression and unemployment. Those who accept the increased tax are will ing to pay 
about €50 per household per year, on average, which results in a mean willingness to pay (WTP) for the 
entire population under investigation of around €12 per household per year. The findings of this research 
work provide useful insights about the 'dollar-based' benefits of LFM in the context of social cost-benefit 
analysis of LFM projects. Yet, it is evident that further research is necessary.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman
Content lists available at ScienceDirect
Dimitris Damigos , Maria Menegaki, Dimitris Kaliampakos
Machine Translated by Google
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.012
mailto:damigos@metal.ntua.gr
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.012
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0956053X
D. Damigos et al. /Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129120
In Scenario 1, the old landfill is reclaimed for urban and industrial 
development and the material with high calorific value is incinerated 
and then generated electricity. Scenario 2 recovers the air space of 
the old landfill to be used as new landfill cell after LMF, and the 
material with high calorific value is incinerated and then generated 
electricity. Scenario 3 examines the complaint of the old landfill for 
urban and industrial development and the material with high calorific 
value is used as raw material for RDF production. Finally, Scenario 
4 uses the air-space of the old landfill after LFM as a new landfill cell, 
and the material with high calorific value as raw material for RDF 
production. The results show that the LFM project could provide a net 
positive benefit of between US$1.92 million to US$16.63 million. The 
estimates were sensitive to the benefits of land reclamation and 
electricity generation; Indeed, the benefit of electricity generation 
(assuming an electricity price of US$0.54 per kW h) was the most 
important factor. Wagner and Raymond (2015) estimated that the 
value of the recovered metal from LFM operations at an ashfill was 
US$7.42 million. The
estimated mean cost per Mt for the extraction and recovery of metal 
was US$158, while the minimum likely revenue was US$216. In total, 
34,352 Mt of ferrous and non-ferrous metals were recovered consisting 
of metals (around 95%), zorba (4.6%), and mixed products (0.8%). 
Furthermore, LFM extended the ashfill's life with an economic value 
of US$267,000, since it increased the land fill's airspace by 10,194 
m3 These figures proved that LFM can be profitably without subsidies.However, recovery of deposited materials and energy resources alone 
rarely seems to economically justify LFM projects, as Frändegård et 
al. (2015) mention. The authors examined two remediation scenarios 
for a hypothetical landfill, namely remediation and remediation with 
resource recovery, concluding that private net benefits are negative. 
Similar findings are reported by Ford et al. (2013), who conducted a 
full review and evaluation of economic, technical, environmental, 
regulatory and sociological issues of LFM to examine the potential to 
mine and reclaim materials from Scottish landfills. They established a 
set of assumptions for a hypothetical 'typical' Scottish landfill and 
compared the potential savings and income of LFM with the costs of 
a 'do-nothing' scenario. Four different scenarios were modeled using 
capital (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) from US and 
European LFM projects: (a) refused derived fuel (RDF) exported for 
use off-site, landfill void space free for reuse; (b) RDF exported for 
use off site, landfill site sold for residential development; (c) Energy 
recovery on site, landfill void space free for reuse; and (d) Energy 
recovery on site, landfill site sold for residential development. In all 
scenarios, the assessment has considered that the process removes 
metals for subsequent re-melting. The outcome of the economic 
analysis is that, for the hypothetical 'typical' Scottish landfill, LFM is 
not economically viable. The exceptions are with 'best outcome' inputs 
and options where energy recovery is implemented at the landfill. 
Same conclusions were drawn by Danthurebandara et al. (2015), who 
also used a hypothetical case examining two scenarios as regards 
the use of the RDF fraction. The basic outline for the hypothetical 
scenarios was an open waste dump site which contained 1,000,000 
tonnes of waste and occupied an urban land of 5 hectares within 
Colombo's city limits. LFM process involved excavation, transportation, 
separation, fines treatment, and land reclamation. Scenario 1 with 
prioritized direct selling of RDF as an alternative fuel to replace coal 
usage in the cement industry, and Scenario 2 examined thermal 
treatment of RDF with the objective of producing electricity. In addition, 
a 'do-nothing' scenario was used as reference scenario.
However, private costs and benefits alone cannot reflect the true 
social worth of LFM projects, mainly owing to the externalities 
involved. Ayalon et al. (2006) provide evidence for the case.
Apart from environmental and social risks and benefits associated 
with LFM, economic aspects should also be taken into account. For 
example, Van Vossen and Prent (2011) examined a 'standard landfill' 
of 500,000 tonnes and 5 hectares in area, based on review of available 
data from 60 LFM projects. The analysis first focused on metal 
recovery. They found that revenue from extracted metal is sufficient 
to offset mining costs by 8.2% where full separation of the waste 
occurs and by 18% where only ferrous metal is separated from the 
waste excavated. They note that the reuse of the area as new landfill 
or for urban development could compensate the total costs, generating 
a return on investment of 10–20%. Jain et al. (2013) considered a 
landfill reclamation project in Florida to recover landfill airspace and 
soil, reduce future groundwater impacts by removing the waste buried 
in the unlined area, and optimize airspace use at the site. The project 
entailed the excavation of approximately 371,000 in-place m3 of 
unlined land fill airspace (including MSW and final cover soil) from 
approximately 6.8 ha of unlined cells. The recovery of the final cover 
soil, bermed soil, and reclaimed soil resulted in savings of 
approximately 230,600 m3 of lined airspace at a cost of US$3.09 
million (i.e. US$8.33 per in-place m3 airspace). The gross monetary 
benefit was approximately US$6 million, since the recovered airspace 
was valued at over US$9 million (the value of airspace was 
approximately $40 per m3 ). Zhou et al. (2015) analyzed a typical old 
landfill mining project in China under four different scenarios.
From an environmental viewpoint, both scenarios presented better 
environmental performance than the 'do-nothing' scenario, although 
environmental impacts were not negligible. However, none of them 
were economically beneficial. Winterstetter et al. (2015) analyzed the 
socioeconomic viability of LFM using as case study the Remo 
Milieubeheer landfill site in Belgium, where an enhanced LFM project 
is being carried out. The study assumes that metals and the stone 
fraction are soldered after recovery, while paper, plastics, wood and 
textiles are entirely converted into RDF and energetically recovered 
exclusively for electricity generation on site. In one scenario a gas-
plasma technology is used, and in an alternative scenario RDF is 
thermally treated in a state-of-the-art fluidized bed incinerator. Finally, 
the regained land at the end of LFM activities is sold. In all scenarios, 
the difference between the present values of cash inflows and outflows 
(ie the Net Present Value – NPV) was negative. In a second step, non-
monetary factors, namely greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, were 
compared to a ''do nothing” scenario assuming a hypothetical CO2 
tax at €10 per t CO2 equiv. Under this assumption the economic 
results improved, even though NPV remained strongly negative.
.
the useful materials, which can then be recycled or be used for energy 
generation, a process known as Landfill Mining (LFM) (Lee and Jones, 
1990; Cossu et al., 1996; Hogland et al., 1997; Carius et al. , 1999; 
Krook et al., 2012; Marella and Raga, 2014; Zhou et al., 2015). In this 
way, old uncontrolled landfills can be rehabilitated, while in operating 
landfills valuable space can be recovered, which means that the 
environment is being protected, since the need for new landfills and, 
thus, the occupation of new land, is restricted. More explicitly, LFM 
may be used in order to: conserve landfill space and so reduce the 
need for new landfill areas; minimize potential contamination sources; 
recover energy from mined waste; reuse recovered materials; and 
redevelop landfill sites (USEPA, 1997; Lee and Jones, 1989a, 1989b, 
1990; Hogland et al., 1997). However, LFM operations are not risk-
free from an environmental viewpoint. LFM projects involve a number 
of steps, ie extraction, processing, transportation and recycling of 
waste, which could give rise to dangerous situations (eg collapses 
into the excavated area, releases of methane and other gases that 
could cause explosions and fires) and harmful effects on human 
health and the environment (eg emission of particulate matter, odor, 
escape of leachate, increased dispersal of unwanted substances such 
as heavy metals) (eg Krook et al., 2007, 2012; Ford et al., 2013).
Machine Translated by Google
Table 
1 Classification of TEV components.It refers to both consumptive (eg raw materials and food) 
and non-consumptive uses (eg recreation) of the 
ecosystem It 
derives from the support and protection of human activities 
by regulatory services and functions (eg flood protection, 
water purification)
Indirect
Direct
Existence It refers to values that people place on a resource of the 
ecosystem, even if they will never see it or use it
Option
Bequest It is the value attached by people to preserve benefits provided 
by the natural environment for future generations
Meaning
Altruistic It is the value that people place to ensure that other people of 
the present generation have access to the benefits 
provided by the natural environment
D. Damigos et al. / Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129
Non-use 
value
Use 
value
121
It refers to the value that people place on having the option 
to enjoy a resource in the future, although they may not 
currently use it
Value type
More explicitly, they performed a cost-benefit analysis of engineer 
ing and architectural-landscape rehabilitation works for the Hiriya 
landfill, in Israel. The findings reveal that engineering rehabilitation 
required for the reduction of environmental impacts results in net 
benefits of US$21.8 million (benefit-to-cost ratio: 0.48) and, 
consequently, the project is unjustifiable. However, the project is 
worthwhile when the benefits from an architectural landscape 
rehabilitation plan in order to convert the landfill into a public park are 
considered. In this case, the authors estimated that the total benefits 
from the engineering and architectural landscape rehabilitation of the 
landfill range from US$112.7 million lion to US$284.7 million, while 
the estimated rehabilitation cost ranges from US$75 million to US$97 
million.
(a) direct market valuation approaches (market price-based, cost-
based, and production functions), eg replacement cost, damage 
avoided cost, substitute (or alternative) cost, and productivity 
change cost (TEEB, 2010) ; (b) revealed 
preference approaches, ie the Travel Cost Method (TCM) and the 
Hedonic Pricing Method (HPM), which elicit preferences from 
the actual behavior of individuals based on market information 
(eg Rosen, 1974; Bleich et al., 1991 ; Garrod and Willis, 1992; 
Heyes and Heyes, 1999; Bouvier et al., 2000; Du Preez and 
Lottering, 2009), and; (c) stated preferences approaches 
that attempt to elicit individuals' preferences directly by means of 
social surveys on hypothetical changes in the quantity or quality 
of environmental mental and/or social goods and services 
(Chee, 2004; TEEB, 2010) . The main types of stated preference 
techniques are: the Contingent Valuation method (CVM) and 
the Choice Modeling (CM). It should be mentioned that Group 
Valuation (GV) approaches are sometimes included in this 
category (TEEB, 2010), as a means to capture value types that 
may escape individual based surveys (Spash, 2008) and to 
tackle shortcomings of traditional monetary valuation methods 
(de Groot et al., 2006).
Environmental valuation is based on people's willingness to pay 
(WTP) an amount of money in order to avoid an environmental 
degradation and its consequences on health, amenity, etc. or their 
willingness to accept (WTA) a compensation in order to suffer the 
environmental impacts incurred (Johansson, 1993; Turner et al., 1994; 
Freeman III, 2003). In principle, WTP or WTA formats could be used 
interchangeably to elicit individuals' preferences for change in the 
level of environmental goods and services (Venkatachalam, 2004).
Nowadays, several environmental valuation techniques exist, 
which differ in data requirements, assumptions regarding economic 
agents, and values that they are able to capture. Broadly speaking, 
valuation techniques are divided into the following three categories:
2. Methodological background
It is evident from the above-mentioned considerations that in order 
to come up with more informed and fair social choices it is important 
to estimate not only private but also environmental and social costs 
and benefits related to LFM and to internalize them in the decision 
making process . To this end, this paper presents the results of a 
survey conducted in Polygyros area (Greece), where a LFM pilot 
application is being carried out for the very first time in Greece in the 
context of the EU funded LIFE project RECLAIM ''Landfill mining pilot 
application for recovery of invaluable metals, materials, land and 
energy”. The survey was conducted by means of a stated-preference 
valuation method, i.e. the Contingent Valuation (CVM), in order to 
estimate society's willingness to pay (WTP) for LFM projects. To the 
authors' knowledge, there exists only one related study (Marella and 
Raga, 2014), which implemented the CVM for the assessment of 
social benefits from the remediation of an old uncontrolled landfill. Our 
research differs from this study not only in terms of methodological 
issues (eg elicitation approach, payment vehicle, etc.) but also (and 
mostly) in focusing on the valuation of LFM as a concept and not as 
an application to a particular study site . To this end, this research 
aims to add to the limited literature available on the subject by: (a) 
exploring attitudes and beliefs about the benefits derived from LFM 
processes; and (b) estimating WTP in support of policies that promote 
LFM plans. The rest of the paper is structured, as follows: Section 2 
includes background information relating to the non-market valuation 
theory and its methods and provides a brief review of existing 
literature in the field of interest. Sections 3 and 4 present the design 
and the results of the CVM survey, respectively. Finally, Section 5 
summarizes the main conclusions drawn from this research work.
Use values involve direct use (ie actual use of an environmental 
good or service for commercial purposes or recreation); indirect use 
(ie benefits from ecosystem services and functions rather than directly 
using them); and option value (ie the value of ensuring the option to 
use a resource in the future, which could be seen as an insurance 
premium) (Damigos, 2006). Non-use values derive from the knowledge 
that the environment is maintained and include altruistic values, which 
are related to the use of
Each of the above-mentioned approaches naturally has its own 
advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, the selection of 
appropriate valuation technique is mainly determined by the type of
2.1. Valuation of non-market goods and services
environmental goods and services from others; bequest values that 
reflect values that people may hold to ensure that their heirs will be 
able to use a natural resource in the future; and existence which 
values reflect the fact that people value resources for moral reasons, 
unrelated to current or future use (DEFRA, 2007).
The majority of goods and services provided by the environment 
has no obvious market and, consequently,price. This is related to the 
so-called ''market failures”, which means that the market place does 
not reflect their true social worth (Turner et al., 1994). From an 
economic point of view, the monetary measure of the change in 
society's well-being resulting from a change in the quality or the 
availability of an environmental asset is based on its Total Economic 
Value (TEV), which, in turn, can be disaggre gated into use values 
and non-use (or passive use) values (Table 1).
Machine Translated by Google
122 D. Damigos et al. /Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129
CVM, which is implemented in this research work, is in use for over 
40 years in over 50 countries by government agencies and international 
organizations and is perhaps the most frequently and widely applied 
stated preference valuation technique (Carson, 2004) . While the most 
known applications are those for natural resource damage assessments 
(eg the Exxon Valdez oil spill), the vast majority of CVM studies have 
been employed for assisting in decision-making procedures (Damigos, 
2006). CVM is a survey-style approach that relies on a hypothetical 
market and asks a sample of individuals to state their hypothetical 
maximum WTP for preserving an environmental asset or their minimum 
WTA for suffering the loss of that asset. The method has two advantages 
over indirect methods: (a) as already mentioned, it is capable of 
capturing non-use values, and (b) in principle, CVM answers go directly 
to the theoretically correct measures of utility changes (Perman et al . , 
2003). Furthermore, it is very flexible, and can be used in estimating 
the economic value of variety of environmental and cultural assets, 
health risks, behavioral change, etc.
– Payment bias that refers to the influences posed by the proposed 
method of payment.
On the other hand, due to the hypothetical character of the method 
and the fact that a social survey by means of questionnaire must take 
place, there is considerable controversy over whether it adequately 
measures people's WTP for environmental quality (eg
– Hypothetical bias, since respondents do not actually pay for the 
proposed actions and, thus, it is possible to overestimate the amount 
that they would pay in a real situation.
Furthermore, between the two most commonly used stated preferred 
approaches the CV method was selected, since CM suffers, like CV, 
from a number of biases, eg the contingent character of the method, 
the selection of appropriate payment vehicle, the strategic behavior of 
the respondents, the difficulty to link choices to the real world, etc. 
(Louviere et al., 2000; Bateman et al., 2002; Sayadi et al., 2009; 
Andreopoulos et al., 2015).
A review of scientific and gray literature, including journal articles, 
conference proceedings, books, agency reports, etc., reveals that there 
exist several studies monetizing disamenity impacts of treatment and 
disposal facilities, as well as studies examining society's WTP for 
improved municipal solid waste (MSW) management, recycling 
schemes, etc. The review found only one research paper dedicated to 
the valuation of LFM benefits by Marella and Raga (2014). It should be 
mentioned that Ayalon et al. (2006) also used the CVM among other 
valuation techniques in examining the economic aspects of the 
rehabilitation of the Hiriya landfill. Never the less, their empirical study 
focused on the benefits from the engineering and the landscape 
rehabilitation of the landfill (ie conversion to a public park), without 
distinguishing between the
Given that our survey: (a) involves an ex ante investigation and (b) 
aims to estimate the TEV of the good under investigation (ie the LFM 
process), direct market valuation and revealed preference approaches 
were not considered for the reasons described above.
2.2. The Contingent Valuation method
– Strategic bias that is related to individuals' efforts to direct the survey 
at specific results.
good or service being valued. In general, direct market valuation 
approaches rely on data, which are easier to obtain. However, if 
markets do not exist for the goods and services under question, then 
these approaches are not available (TEEB, 2010). Furthermore, and 
more importantly, the direct market valuation and revealed preference 
approaches are more suitable, not to say attainable, for ex-post 
valuation, since they rely on actual or observed behavior and are not 
capable of capturing non-use values (eg Freeman III, 2003; Brouwer et 
al., 2013). On the contrary, stated preference approaches are often the 
only way to estimate non-use values and tend to be more adequate for 
ex-ante valuations (Freeman III, 2003; TEEB, 2010; Brouwer et al., 
2013).
2.3. Review of related literature
Given that a large number of studies is usually required to gain an 
in-depth understanding of how people perceive and value
– Information bias, since it is assumed that people understand the 
good in question and reveal their preferences as they would do in a 
real market.
It should be mentioned, however, that the above-mentioned biases 
could be reduced to a great extent or even eliminated by a proper 
survey design, and that the overall process has significantly improved 
as other relative scientific fields have shown considerable capable 
improvements (Trials and Damigos, 2012).
Hanemann, 1991), the 'property rights', etc. (Venkatachalam, 2004).
Marella and Raga (2014) implemented the CVM for separately 
estimating the community-perceived monetary benefits from the 
remediation of an old uncontrolled waste deposit by means of LFM and 
the conversion of the area into a park. The survey was carried out in 
Northern Italy close to a small town, on a random sample of people 
living near the old landfill. In total, 150 questionnaires were filled in via 
personal interviews, out of 174 submitted to the residents. Two possible 
distinct future scenarios were presented to the respondents. According 
to the first scenario, LFM is carried out for the complete removal of the 
deposited waste and the underlying soil affected by leachates. In the 
second, the respondents are asked to assume that LFM is completed 
and the area is converted into a public park. As a result, the monetary 
value related to the increase in the collective well-being following the 
LFM was estimated. Subsequently, two different estimates of residents' 
WTP for the above-mentioned interventions were elicited using the 
iterative bidding game technique. Almost all of the respondents (91.3%) 
declared to be willing to pay for the LFM and the mean WTP was equal 
to approximately €196, similar to the findings of Sasao (2004), who 
reports a one-time WTP of approximately US$200 (external costs 
associated with the sitting of a landfill for industrial waste). Regarding 
the creation of the park, the percentage of those who had declared 
their WTP fell slightly (87%) but the amount of WTP was, onaverage, 
around €200.
– WTP vs. WTA, which leads to observed differences in the estimation 
mates. Theoretical and experimental research efforts have explained 
the WTA/WTP disparity based on the 'prospect the ory' (eg 
Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), the elasticity of substitution 
between environmental and market goods (eg
two.
– Part-Whole bias (also mentioned as embedding effect), which is 
related to the effect of the scale or the scope of the environment 
such good or the information provided via the hypothetical scenario.
Diamond and Hausman, 1994; Navrud and Pruckner, 1997; Ajzen et 
al., 2004; Damigos, 2006). The debate over the use of CVM has two 
major points (Carson, 2000). The first one is whether or not non-use 
values should be included in an economic analysis. The entire subject 
gained considerable notoriety, apart from pure scientific interest, after 
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in its Ohio vs. US Department of Interior 
ruling that allowed the inclusion of non-use values in natural resource 
damage assessments (US District Court of Appeals, 1989). The second 
point concerns mainly some technical problems involved in CV studies, 
including (Damigos, 2006):
Machine Translated by Google
Vðp; q0; yÞ ¼ Vðp; q1; y-WTPÞ
WTP ¼ eðp; q0;U0 Þ eðp; q1;U0 Þ
As mentioned, the CVM relies on a direct questionnaire approach, 
asking a sample of individuals to state their hypothetical maximum 
WTP or their minimum WTA. These values derive from the Hicksian 
welfare measures of the compensating variation (CoV) and the 
equivalent variation (EV). More specifically, WTP is the maximum 
amount an individual would pay to gain an environmental 
improvement (CoV) or to avoid an environmental deterio ration (EV), 
while WTA is the minimum amount an individual would take as a 
compensation to accept an environmental deteri prayer (CoV) or to 
forgo an environmental improvement (EV). The two measures differ 
by the implied assignment of property rights (Champ et al., 2003). 
For instance, if the initial utility level (status quo) is the basis for 
comparison (ie the property rights is the status quo) and an 
environmental improvement is considered, the compensating welfare 
measure should be used. However, if the environmental improvement 
aims at restoring an environmental damage (ie the property rights 
corresponds to the final utility after the change) then the equivalent 
welfare measure should be used.
In order to elicit the preferences of individuals for the 
implementation of LFM programs, application guidelines, which are 
available in a number of existing reviews, were taken into 
consideration (eg Bateman et al., 2002; Heal et al., 2005 ; Kanninen, 
2006). For the questionnaire to be effective, two focus group 
sessions were conducted. The first focus group involved six 
participants, consisting of environmental economists and SWM 
experts, and resulted in the first draft version of the questionnaire. 
The second focus group was conducted in Polygyros Municipality 
and involved, in addition to members of the first group, a small 
number of Polygyros' residents. The purpose was to expose the 
question naire, to discuss, in depth, critical points related mainly to 
the valuation scenario and the payment vehicle, and to check the 
content for inconsistencies. This latest version of the questionnaire 
was pretested via a pilot study in Polygyros area involving around 
25 participants, in order to identify questions that could be 
misunderstood or any other potential problems that could lead to 
biased answers. The final questionnaire consisted of four main parts:
In the case studied, the maximum WTP is the change in income 
that makes an individual indifferent between the two situations, i.e. 
the original quality of the environment prior to implementing LFM 
programs q0 with an income y and the improved quality of the 
environment due to LFM programs q1 with an income y-WTP, 
according to the following indirect utility function:
The aim of the survey was threefold: (a) to investigate people's 
knowledge and attitude about existing MSW management practices; 
(b) to understand people's beliefs about LFM and its perceived 
benefits; and (c) to estimate people's support and their WTP for LFM 
projects.
3.2. Practical considerations of the study
''I don't think there should be an LFM program”
As a first step in filling the existing research gap in literature, our 
interest lies in examining how people perceive and value the concept 
of LFM as a whole (ie resource and energy conservation; prevention 
and reduction of environmental pollution and nui health; and 
conservation of landfill space and avoidance of new landfills).
''I feel that there should be an LFM program, but I do not 
really feel that it is my responsibility to pay for it”
non-market goods and services, it is evident that we lack of knowl 
edge in the topic of LFM valuation. In addition, the only existing 
estimates, i.e. those provided by Marella and Raga (2014), are site- 
and most important issue-specific. To wit, the estimated LFM values 
refer solely to benefits from the remediation of an old uncontrolled 
landfill and are derived using information gathered by residents living 
in close proximity to contaminated site. This setting does not favor 
the estimation of use and non use values associated with other LFM 
benefits (eg conservation of raw materials and energy, avoidance of 
new landfills, etc.), and does not explore what factors influence 
households' perceptions, opinions and beliefs about LFM policies.
This part begins with a simplified description of the landfilling 
problem and the concept of LFM. Then three questions follow 
that investigate respondents' opinion using a five point Likert 
scale about the LFM benefits with respect to: resource and 
energy conservation; prevention and reduction of environmental 
pollution and nuisance; and conservation of landfill space and 
avoidance of new landfills. Following, in order to investigate 
public support for LFM projects, respondents were asked to 
state which of the following sentences best reflects their 
thinking: ''I feel that there should be 
an LFM program, and I feel some responsibility for paying 
for it.”
(a) A set of three 'warm-up' questions investigating general beliefs 
of the respondent about environmental, social and economic 
issues. (b) A set 
of four main questions and five follow-up questions aiming at 
identifying respondents' attitudes and beliefs relating to Solid 
Waste Management (SWM) (eg how often have they seen, 
heard, or read about SWM issues from inter net, TV, radio, 
newspapers, etc.; how important is the issue of SWM in 
comparison with other environmental issues; how important 
are the environmental problems related to uncontrolled and 
controlled landfilling; do they recycle and why or why not, etc.). 
(c) A set of questions 
concerning the main purpose of the survey, i.e. people'ssupport 
and their WTP for LFM projects.
3.1. theoretical model
Then, survey participants were asked to express their WTP for 
policy measures that would promote FAW. In order to develop a 
realistic WTP scenario, respondents were told that if a plan for LFM 
operations was adopted, it would cost money. Assuming that 
economic activities that generate municipal waste, such as 
restaurants, would pay the cost that corresponds to them, citizens 
would also be asked to financially contribute to this plan. Respondents 
were informed that in this case all households would pay an 
additional amount of money through higher municipal taxes and they
In the following sections, first the theoretical model for the CVM 
analysis is provided, and then the practical aspects of conducting the 
field research are discussed.
3. Design of the CV study
The WTP of respondents in order to implement the LFM program is also 
defined with the following expenditure function:
where p is a vector of prices for marketed goods, q1 and q0 represent 
the final (ie improved) and the initial (ie status quo) level of the 
environment, U0 is the reference utility level given by the indirect utility 
function V(p, q0 , y) and y is the income. In other words, individuals 
must spend more, remaining at utility level U0 in order to ensure that 
the environmental condition is improved.
,
123D. Damigos et al. / Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129
Machine Translated by Google
8
ð2ÞPðWTP < wÞ ¼
>=><
P
ð1Þ
0
w ¼ 0
>;
s
p þ ð1 pÞFðwÞ w > 0
w < 0
>:
9
C ¼ X
strategic behavior, which is usual in voluntary payments
pay and has a continuous WTP distribution.
It should be mentioned that collective payment was preferred
approach was successful in the laboratory. Similarly, other researchers
were implemented to analyze WTP responses, which is a common
better environment for future generations (non-use bequest
The estimation of WTP is carried out with parametric and non-
parametric models. Parametric estimation relies on models that
equation:
(1997) and Carson and Groves (2007) argue that respondents
So, please before you make your decision, I would like you to consider 
that you must fulfill other needs in your life, for example
proposed by Reiser and Shechter (1999), which is an extended
person would actually pay) (Loomis, 2014). Towards the same
on distributional assumptions, and thus, it avoids inconsistent wel fare 
estimates associated with assumptions made by the analyst
Those who agreed to pay were asked to identify the fraction of
Non-parametric estimation of the distribution of WTP was
(Damigos et al., 2009). Within the CV literature, the ''free riding”
other studies have had less success (Loomis, 2014). The script used
to zero and CJ is the largest WTP value in the sample.
Those who refused to support the LFM program were asked the
(eg List, 2001; Landry and List, 2007; Champ et al., 2009) have
practice in CV literature (eg Hutchinson et al., 2001; Crooker and
to voluntary contribution in order to discourage ''free riding” and
value); and (d) for protecting the ecosystems affected by landfilling
''I want to talk to you about a problem that we have in studies like
C = the mean WTP value,
may respond strategically and may overstate their WTP when presented 
with a voluntary payment scenario. However, relatively few
conform to economic theory. It emphasizes on the conditional relationship 
of WTP and the vector of covariants that describe respondents' 
characteristics (Bateman et al., 2002). Its main advantages
spike model approach introduced by Kriström (1997). More specifically, a 
mixture model was used implying that the population ofFinally, there were two follow-up questions, one for those
direction, a ''cheap talk” script was used informing respondents
(Haab and McConnell, 2003); yet, it does not provide information
housing expenses, entertainment, clothing, etc. and to ask yourself:
achieved through the Kaplan–Meier product limit estimator, which
their bid: (a) for ensuring a better environment for themselves and
concept has been used to explain why hypothetical contributions
in this study was, as follows:
bSðCjÞ = the empirical estimate of the survivor function at each of
reason of their denial, in an attempt to separate 'protest' and 'true
populations without constraining exclusively to the sampled pop ulation 
(Torero et al., 2003). However, the use of parametric
would in a real situation. This difference in the way people respond
Compulsory payment mechanism was also used as a means to
(non-use existence value).
this one. In most studies of this kind, where they don't really have
Cj = the ordered WTP values from lowest to highest. C0 is equal
surveys have been undertaken to systematically explore the sensitivity of 
WTP under collective and voluntary payment vehicles (eg
are that it allows to impose preference axioms relatively easy,
(d) A set of typical demographic notes, eg, annual income, gender, 
age, family status, employment status, education, etc.
interest can be considered to be composed of two sub-populations: one 
sub-population is not willing to pay at all for
respondents with a positive and one for those with a negative
to the analyst interested in determining whether WTP is systematically 
influenced by respondent's characteristics (Bateman et al.,
''If this was a real situation, would I really want to pay this
were asked to state what, in their opinion, would be a reasonable
that participants in past surveys have been shown to overstate
their households (use value); (b) for ensuring a better environment
are often well above than current ones (eg Hanemann, 1996;
3.3. Parametric and non-parametric models to estimate households'
is an empirical approach to estimating the survivor function of
zeros' (eg Halstead et al., 1992; Jorgensen et al., 1999; Strazzera
distribution to approximate the distribution of WTP represents a
to hypothetical situations as compared to real situations is called
the Cj.
reduce hypothetical bias (ie the difference between what a person
Considering WTP answers without involving covariate information, let 
p indicate the probability that an individual chosen at ran dom has WTP = 
0 and let F(x), x > 0 symbolize the continuous
Champ et al., 2002; Wiser, 2007).
combine experiments and extrapolate calculations to different
to pay money, respondents state different WTP amounts than they
answer to the WTP question.
2002). Each approach has advantages and disadvantages and provides 
different pieces of information. Therefore, both approaches
money?” and state the amount you would ACTUALLY pay”
maximum surcharge on their municipal tax. The elicitation question was 
asked in an open ended (OE) format.
their WTP. A ''cheap talk” script describing and discussing hypo thetical 
bias as an integral part of the CV questionnaire was introduced by 
Cummings and Taylor (1999), who found that this
the good in question, while theother sub-population is willing to
for other households (non-use altruistic value); (c) for ensuring a
WTP
WTP responses (Bateman et al., 2002). The median value is calculated 
to the point at which the survivor function reaches a probability of 0.5, and 
the mean WTP value is calculated by the following
Carson, 1997). As far as the strategic bias is concerned, Carson
et al., 2003; Meyerhoff and Liebe, 2008).
“hypothetical bias”.
The parametric estimation of WTP values followed the method
indicates they would pay in the survey or interview and what a
large fairly assumption (Bateman et al., 2002). To this end, non parametric 
estimation offers the advantage that it does not rely on
cumulative distribution function (cdf) for the sub-population will ing to pay. 
The cdf for an open-ended response w is, as follows:
found that ''cheap talk” is primarily effective especially for respondents 
unfamiliar with the good under investigation. Nevertheless,
Herriges, 2004; Andersson et al., 2013).
Onde:
For an observed random sample of n individuals, di = 1, if the i-th
(ie wi > 0), the likelihood function can be written as follows:
.
individual's observed WTP is zero and greater than 0 otherwise
j¼0
J _
ðCjÞ½Cjþ1 Cj
124 D. Damigos et al. /Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129
Machine Translated by Google
n
wi>0
Y fðwiÞ
ð4Þ
ð5ÞY fðwiÞ
ð3Þpdið1 pÞ
1di 
pdið1 pÞ
where f is obtained as the derivative of F and Q 
product taken over all individuals with observed WTP > 0.
Pdi Maximizing Eq. (4) results in p^ ¼ 
observed zero responses provided by the participants. In order to 
maximize Eq. (5), an appropriate distribution for F should be selected.
and
represents the
which is the percentage of the,
4. Results
All the respondents were required to answer the question and 
state their maximum WTP amount provided that the payment 
mechanism was mandatory. The elicited value was zero for 76% of 
the respondents. According to the answers given to the follow up 
question, which explored the cause of denial, the reason of 51% of 
those who refused to pay was that they couldn't afford it due to low 
income. Around 48% of the 'zero responses' were protest bids. The 
prevailing reasons were that 'other economic activities should pay for 
the plan' (19.5%), 'I already pay enough municipal/income taxes' (18%) 
and, 'the government/local authorities should
More than 95% of the participants say that they participate in 
recycling programs. As far as the motivations are concerned, resource 
conservation is the most favorable option (38.5%) among the 
respondents, followed by protection of the environment (36.6%) and 
energy conservation (23.1%). Among those respondents who 
participate in recycling programs, almost 95% declare that they 
recycle packaging waste, 71% recycle paper, 71% recycle batteries 
and 10% recycle electrical and electronic waste.
Respondents seem to be well-informed about the risks of 
uncontrolled landfilling provided that almost all (ie more than 96.5%) 
state that the uncontrolled waste disposal is associated with significant 
problems. Furthermore, almost four-fifth of them (ie 83.2%) believe 
that controlled landfills create less significant prob lems than the 
uncontrolled ones, while the rest say that the prob lems are of equal 
importance. As regards the significance of the problems related to 
waste disposal, more than 70% of the respondents recognize water 
pollution as the most important issue, caused by soil pollution (9%), 
air pollution (6%), and global warming ( 4%) and deforestation (4%).
As mentioned, respondents were, first, told about the LFM concept 
and, then, they were asked to evaluate the importance of LFM 
according to their opinion focusing on three fields: resource and 
energy conservation; prevention and reduction of environmental 
pollution and nuisance; and conservation of landfill space and 
avoidance of new landfills. The responses indicate that the resource 
and energy conservation is the most important benefit to the 
participants followed by the prevention and reduction of environmental 
pollution and nuisance, and the conservation of landfill space and 
avoidance of new landfills. More specifically:
Concerning the support for the LFM concept, more than 95% of 
the respondents feel that there should be an LFM program. Never 
the less, 18.2% said that they feel some responsibility for paying for 
it, while 77.3% said that they don't feel that it is their responsibility to 
pay for it.
4.2. Willingness-To-Pay for LFM
internet, TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, information meetings or 
friendly conversations a few times and 6% many times. Never 
theless, about 22% of them have never heard anything about those 
issues. In comparison with other environmental issues in their area, 
SWM are of equal importance for the vast majority of the respondents 
(ie 88.8%). Only 4.4% of the respondents believe that SWM issues 
are more important and 6.6% support the opposite view.
to census and opinion variables that are supposed to have an 
influence on them, a subscript i on p, F (and f) is introduced. In this 
case, the first part of the likelihood function (Eq. (4)) can be estimated 
using a logistic regression (logit) model calibrated to interpret the 
response to the binary WTP question according to census and opinion 
variables, and the second part of the likelihood function (Eq. (5)) 
consists of optimizing the cumulative distribution function F (and f) of 
the sub-population that is willing to pay, anything, using a general 
empirical linear regression model.
– about 21% of the respondents characterize the benefits of 
prevention and reduction of environmental pollution and nuisance 
as 'very important' and 69.2% as 'moderate important' – 
about 22.4% of the respondents characterize the benefits of 
conservation of landfill space as 'very important' and 44.8% as 
'moderate important'
In order to model WTP answers and WTP bids and connect them
– about 67% of the respondents characterize the benefits of resource 
and energy conservation as 'very important' and 26% as 'moderate 
important'
Approximately 70% of the respondents state that the most 
important problem they face is unemployment, followed by the poor 
economy (22.4%) and the environmental pollution (4.2%). As regards 
the environment in their area, around 74% declare that they are 
somewhat or very dissatisfied and the rest declare that they are 
somewhat or very satisfied. Consistent with the above-mentioned 
findings, around 67.5% of the respondents consider job creation more 
important than the preservation of the environment, 22.7% believe 
that the protection of the environment should not be sacrificed in 
order to save jobs and around 10% neither agree nor disagree with 
any of these claims.
Respondents were selected on a random basis at different locations 
across Polygyros municipality and at different parts of the day to 
ensure a cross section of residents.In addition, during data collection, 
response rates were closely monitored on the basis of age, gender 
and socioeconomic group quotas. Given the described probability 
sampling procedure, the sample is considered to be representative 
of the population. However, small deviations between census data for 
the area and sample demographics are mentioned, which are related 
to denials especially among older respondents and female respondents.
The survey was carried out between April and June 2015 involving 
residents of the Polygyros municipality. In total 286 completed 
questionnaires were collected and the response rate was around 
70%, sincere attention was paid to reduce non-response bias design 
ing the survey properly (eg preparation of a questionnaire with clear 
and concise wording, use of well-trained interviewers, etc.).
Reiser and Shechter's (1999) method suggests breaking up the 
likelihood function into two separate parts, which can be maxi mized 
separately to provide maximum likelihood estimates of the unknown 
parameters, i.e.
4.1. Summary of survey data
About 70% of the respondents state that they have seen, heard, 
or read about solid waste management (SWM) issues from
D. Damigos et al. / Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129 125
Yn
i¼1
wi>0
i¼1
i¼1
1di
Yn pdi ½ð1 pÞfðwiÞ1di ¼ Yn
wi>0
Machine Translated by Google
variables, r is a variance parameter, and ei is a random error
the satisfaction level increases, so does the willingness to financially 
support LFM program in order to preserve the environment),
economy) were mentioned as the most important problem by
from an environmental standpoint. In cases where LFM becomes a
The statistically significant explanatory variables and the
The mean and median WTP per household per year for those
by landfilling (non-use existence value). In total, the estimated
program. All the amounts declared correspond to less than 0.5%
exploring the influence of respondents' beliefs and demographics
have children (and thus may hold bequest values), and higher
men), the educational level of the respondent (people with higher
Their financial responsibility is probably associated with the current 
economic situation in Greece. To wit, 95% of the respondents
uses), the economic feasibility of the LFM project is not seen as a
During the last years, there is an increasing interest to recover
illustrated in the following Table 2.
value was €0.
other households (non-use altruistic value); 25.5% for securing a
The bid function used (Bateman et al., 2002) was based on log 
normal empirical regression model considering only positive WTP
i, b is the estimated coefficient of corresponding explanatory
energy and land through LFM, although the process is not risk-free
In the case studied, it was found that positive WTP values followed 
the lognormal distribution, with:
component with mean zero.
4.2.1. Non-parametric estimation of WTP
value); and, finally, 18.5% for protecting the ecosystems affected
As regards the WTP binary question, the analysis aimed at
more informed (ie read or hear more often about SWM issues),
€120 per year in increased municipal taxes for supporting a LFM
respondent (women are more likely to support LFM programs than
be responsible for the plan' (7%). The respondents' attitude towards
reasons (eg to repair the landfill liner or to rehabilitate an uncon trolled 
landfill) or other purposes (eg to develop the land for other
xi is a vector of the selected explanatory variables of respondent
characteristics. The results of the logistic regression model are
to €12.5 (95% CI 9.7–15.3) per household per year and the median
household(use value); 19% for ensuring a better environment for
predicted by the binary model account for 78% (=p) of the
has to be economically feasible; otherwise it will never be
a positive bid).
values, as follows:
better environment for future generations (non-use bequest
4.2.3. Parametric estimation with WTP determinants
programs (respondents who feel responsible to pay for LFM pro 
grams are more likely to place a positive bid), the gender of the
The coefficients have the expected sign, indicating model credibility. 
More specifically, the positive sign in INF_FREQ, HHMEM BERS_U18 
and INCOME implies that the respondents, who are
The rest of the respondents (24%) offered more than €5 up to
when wastes have to be moved either for serious environmental
mean WTP for the entire sample (ie including zeros) was equal
their WTP amount for ensuring a better environment for their
The average WTP per household per month, given that zero bids
the household (people with higher income are more likely to place
of coefficients. More explicitly, bid probability depends on respondents' 
beliefs about the status of the environment in their area (as
2013). In all other cases, LFM, like any other economic activity,
related to the economic situation (ie unemployment and poverty
responses, equals to 9.8 € and the median WTP to 0 €, respectively.
the responsibility that respondents feel about the support of LFM
more than 85% of the respondents.
requirement for state authorities or private actors, for example,
respective coefficients are presented in Table 3.
who placed a positive bid (ie excluding zero responses) were 
estimated at €46.7 (95% CI €41.4–€52.0) and €50, respectively. The
non-use value is equal to 63% of TEV.
of respondents' income. On average, respondents offered 37% of
5. Conclusions
household income, are willing to pay more for supporting LFM
programs.
education are more likely to place a positive bid) and the income of
declare annual household income less than €30,000 and three 
quarters of the respondents less than €20,000. Furthermore, issues
The logit model results are consistent with the anticipated signs
priority, since the cost is considered as inevitable (Ford et al.,
the materials situated in landfills as a means to conserve resources,
4.2.2. Parametric estimation of WTP without covariates
r
ð7Þ
0; p P
ð8Þ
1
mean ¼ ð1 pÞelþr2=2
lnðWTPÞ ¼ fðxi; b;r;eiÞ
ð1 pÞel; p<
and UðtÞ ¼ Z
)
2p p
FðzÞ ¼ Uð ð6Þ
(
ffiffiffiffiffiffi
logz l
average ¼
LMF_PAY 4,529*** 
.623*** 
.971** 
.510* 
.354** 
6.732***
D. Damigos et al. /Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129
EDUC
INCOME
How often to hear about SWM issues
Significant at 95% level.
B
Total household income
n = 283, 2LL = 198,554, Cox & Snell R2 = 37.4%, Nagelkerke R2 = 54.3%.
2,169***
n = 74, Adj. R2 = 33.2%. ÿ 
Significant at 90% level.
Gender
Description of variables
INCOME
Satisfaction about the environmental status
Significant at 95% level.
variable
INF_FREQ
ENV_STATUS
Total household income
Number of household members under 18
Significant at 99% level.
126
Description of variables
GENDER
Constant
.394*** 
.135** 
.311***
Educational level
variable
Significant at 90% level.
B
HHMEMBERS_U18
Support LFM and responsible to pay
Significant at 99% level.
Constant
1
1
1
two
t
eu2=2du
two
***
***
*
**
**
From Eqs. (2) and(6), the mean and median WTP values were 
estimated, as follows (Bateman et al., 2002):
By maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), l and r were calculated
(8), the mean and median WTP values were found equal to €11.4
and €0 per household per year, respectively.
to 3.7051, and 0.5634 respectively, and by substituting the 
estimated p (which was found equal to 76%), l and r to Eqs. (7) and
Onde:
and
Bid function model results.
Table 2
Table 3
Binary logistic model results.
Machine Translated by Google
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Carson, R., 1997. Contingent valuation: theoretical advances and empirical tests since 
the NOAA panel. Am. J. Agric. Economy. 79(5), 1501–1507.
Ajzen, I., Brown, T.C., Carvajal, F., 2004. Explaining the discrepancy between intentions 
and actions: the case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation.
D. Damigos et al. / Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129
Bleich, D., Findley III, M., Phillips, G., 1991. An evaluation of the impact of a well designed 
landfill on surrounding property values. Appraisals. J. 59 (2), 247–252.
Carson, R., Groves, T., 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference 
questions. Environ. Resour. Economy. 37(1), 181–210.
Bouvier, R., Halstead, J., Conway, K., Monalo, A., 2000. The effect of landfills on rural 
residential property values: some empirical analysis. J. Reg. Anal. Policy 30 (2), 23–
37.
127
Carson, RT, 2000. Contingent valuation: a user's guide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34,
Brouwer, R., Brander, R., Kuik, O., Papyrakis, E., Bateman, I., 2013. A synthesis of 
approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB. 
Report to the European Commission. <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/
biodiversity/economics/ pdf/EU%20Valuation.pdf>.
Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., 
Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R., Swanson, J., 
2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual.
1413–1418.
Carius, S., Hogland, W., Jilkén, L., Mathiasson, A., Andersson, P.-Å., 1999. A hidden 
waste material resource: disposed thermoplastic. In: Procs. Sardinia 99, 7th 
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 4–8 October 1999, 
Cagliari, Italy, pp. 229–235.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30(9), 1108–1121.
This is the raison d'être of the research conducted; it aims to add to the limited 
knowledge and research in this topic and wishes to provide useful insights for 
practitioners and policy-makers about the 'dollar-based' benefits of LFM. To this 
direction, our research differs from previous efforts (eg Marella and Raga, 2014) by 
focusing, for the first time, on the valuation of LFM process as a whole in order to: (a) 
better understand people's beliefs about LFM and its perceived benefits, in general; 
and (b) estimate people's support and their WTP for LFM projects. This setting 
contributes to the exploration of the factors influencing households' perceptions, 
opinions and beliefs about LFM policies and facilitates the estimation of use and non-
use values associated with LFM (eg conservation of raw materials and energy). In 
this way, it favors the use of the estimated values in the context of benefit transfer 
method, although there are some limitations that should be taken into consideration 
when generalizing the results.
Andersson, H., Hammitt, J.K., Lindberg, G., Sundström, K., 2013. Willingness to pay 
and sensitivity to time framing: a theoretical analysis and an application to car 
safety. Environ. Resour. Economy. 56(3), 437–456.
This work was supported by the LIFE+ financial instrument of the European 
Community in the context of LIFE RECLAIM ''Landfill mining pilot application for 
recovery of invaluable metals, materials, land and energy” (www.reclaim.gr) , Grant: 
LIFE12 ENV/GR/000427. The coordinating beneficiary is ENVECO SA and the 
associated beneficiaries are the Municipality of Polygyros, School of Mining & 
Metallurgical Engineering of NTUA and HELECTOR S.ÿ.
Acknowledgments
In conclusion, the findings of this research provide a useful input for estimating the 
external benefits of LFM towards conducting a social cost-benefit analysis. Yet, it is 
evident that further research is necessary into these issues provided that only one sim 
ilar study has been conducted, so far.
References
implemented. So far, the economic feasibility of LFM projects from a private point of 
view has been studied little and with conflicting results. However, it is well established 
and widely accepted that financial analysis alone cannot capture all benefits and costs 
of LFM projects. Unfortunately, there exist even fewer studies attempting to 
economically justify the need for LMF projects from a social point of view. This is not 
surprising, as it is in principle difficult to monetize non-market costs and benefits, and 
it is an obstacle for the development of LFM processes. Revealing the hidden value 
of LFM through social cost-benefit analysis might be the key for realizing the true gains 
for all parties involved, i.e. local societies, private firms involved in such operations, 
and state authorities, and, thus, it could help in establishing and funding LFM projects, 
for example through publicly funded programs and subsidies.
Mr. V. Chorinos from the Municipality of Polygyros for their valuable help in conducting 
the survey, as well as the four anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our 
manuscript and their helpful and constructive comments that greatly contributed to 
improving its final version.
Bakas, I., Milios, L., 2013. Municipal waste management in Greece. European 
Environmental Agency Report.
The authors would also like to thank Mr. G. Diamantoulakis and
Apart from the economic situation, differences in the estimated WTP may be 
attributed to the payment vehicle used and the context of the two surveys. Hence, 
even similarities noted between these two studies may originate from different 
motivations. For instance, in both cases LFM receives wide acceptance from the 
society. In Marella and Raga (2014), however, the importance of LFM is mainly related 
to the benefits of rehabilitating the old uncontrolled landfill. In our case, it seems that 
LFM acceptance is mainly related to the importance of resource conservation and 
coincides with the recycling behavior of the respondents.
Ayalon, O., Becker, N., Shani, E., 2006. Economic aspects of the rehabilitation of the 
Hiriya landfill. Waste Management. 26(11), 1313–1323.
Those who were willing to support LFM programs via increased municipal taxes, 
would pay on average, about €50 per household per year, which could be considered 
comparable with the lump-sum payment of 196 € of Marella and Raga (2014) assuming 
a social dis count rate of 3% and about a 4-year period of payments. Neverthe less, 
the mean WTP for the entire population, since about three quarters of therespondents 
rejected to pay more tax, is much lower and is estimated at around 12 € per household 
per year. This amounts corresponds to around 10% of the cost per household per year 
for SWM services in the area, according to data provided by the officers of Polygyros 
Municipality.
92–103.
Andreopoulos, D., Damigos, D., Comiti, F., Fischer, C., 2015. Estimating the non 
-market benefits of climate change adaptation of river ecosystem services: a choice 
experiment application in the Aoos basin, Greece. Environ. Sci. Policy 45,
In particular, the survey was conducted in a rural district in Greece. Previous 
empirical evidence shows that environmental attitudes and WTP values may vary 
between urban and rural populations (eg Dror et al., 2007; Yu, 2014). Furthermore, it 
has to be taken into account that the current economic situation of Greece influences 
the survey results significantly; more than half of those who refused to pay anything, 
said that they couldn't afford it due to low income. This might suggest that Greek 
society's WTP for LFM programs could be much higher under different economic 
conditions, although this has to be proven with more data from a future survey. In order 
to offset influences concerning this situation and since income affects WTP estimates, 
as provided by the econometric models, it is strongly suggested to adjust the values 
obtained from this study for benefit transfer purposes, using appropriate formulas (eg 
Bateman et al. , 2002).
Machine Translated by Google
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0065
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/%20pdf/EU%20Valuation.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/%20pdf/EU%20Valuation.pdf
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0065
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-053X(15)30246-4/h0015
Jorgensen, BS, Syme, GJ, Bishop, BJ, Nancarrow, BE, 1999. Protest responses in contingent 
valuation. Environ. Resour. Economy. 14(1), 131–150.
United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1989.
Kanninen, B. (Ed.), 2006. Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A 
Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice. The Economics of Non-Market Goods 
and Services, vol. 8. Springer, Dordrecht.
Frändegård, P., Krook, J., Svensson, N., 2015. Integrating remediation and resource recovery: 
on the economic conditions of landfill mining. Waste Management. 42, 137–147 .
Ramsar Technical Report No. 3, CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention 
Secretariat, Gland, 66pp 
DEFRA, 2007. An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services, London, UK,
D. Damigos et al. /Waste Management 51 (2016) 119–129
1013–1023.
Economy. 52(1), 104–122.
Halstead, JM, Luloff, AE, Stevens, TH, 1992. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeast. 
J. Agric. Resour. Economy. 21, 160–169.
Ford, S., Warren, K., Lorton, C., Smithers, R., Read, A., Hudgins, M., 2013. Feasibility and 
Feasibility of Landfill Mining and Reclamation in Scotland (Scoping Study), Final Report, 
Zero Waste Scotland. <http://ee.ricardo.com/cms/assets/Documents-for-Insight-pages/
Resource-efficiency/Feasability-and-Viability-of LFMR-Scotland-1904130.pdf>.
University Press, Cambridge.
Landry, CE, List, JA, 2007. Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in 
contingent markets: evidence from the field. Am. J. Agric. Economy. 89, 420–429.
Lee, G. F., Jones, R. A., 1989a. Municpal Solid Waste Management: Long-Term Public Health 
and Environmental Protection. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New 
Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, August.
Environ. Resour. Economy. 27(4), 451–480.
Quaghebeur, M., Laenen, B., Geysen, D., Nielsen, P., Pontikes, Y., Van Gerven, T., Spooren, J., 
2013. Characterization of landfilled materials: screening of the enhanced landfill mining 
potential . J. Cleaner Prod. 55, 72–83.
Champ, PA, Boyle, KJ, Brown, TC, 2003. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. The Economics of 
Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol. 3, p. 592.
Du Preez, M., Lottering, T., 2009. Determining the negative effect on house values of proximity to 
a landfill site by means of an application of the hedonic pricing method. South Africa. J. 
Econ. Manage. Sci. 12 (2), 256–262.
Cummings, RG, Taylor, LO, 1999. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap 
talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 89, 649–665.
Hermann, R., Baumgartner, R.J., Sarc, R., Ragossnig, A., Wolfsberger, T., Eisenberger, M., 
Budischowsky, A., Pomberger, R., 2014. Landfill mining in Austria: foundations for an 
integrated ecological and economic assessment. Waste Management. Res 32 (9), 48–58.
Louviere, J., Hensher, D., Swait, D., Adamowicz, W., 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis 
and Applications. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Ireland: a discrete choice contingent valuation study with follow-ups. J. Agric.
Conserve. Recycle. 102, 67–79.
Haab, TC, McConnell, KE, 2003. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometric 
of Non-market Valuation. Edward Elgar, Northhampton, MA.
Recycle. 46(4), 335–364.
Lee, GF, Jones, RA, 1990. Use of landfill mining in solid waste management. In: Proc. Water 
Quality Management of Landfills. Water Pollution Control Federation, Chicago, IL, p. 9.
Crooker, JR, Herriges, Ja, 2004. Parametric and semi-nonparametric estimation of willingness-to-
pay in the dichotomous choice contingent valuation framework.
CEED Project Number 09/002, UWA Business School, University of Western Australia.
Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J., Common, M., 2003. Natural Resource and Environmental 
Economics, third ed. Pearson Education Limited.
128
surveys. J. Agric. Resour. Economy. 39, 34–46.
Krook, J., Svensson, N., Eklund, M., 2012. Landfill mining: a critical review of two decades