Is bigger better? An empirical analysis of waste management in New South Wales

Journal Article · Fri May 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015 · Waste Management

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2015.01.024· OSTI ID:22470245

Carvalho, Pedro ^[1]; Dollery, Brian ^[2]

---

1. LAMEMO Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, COPPE/UFRJ, Av. Pedro Calmon – Ilha do Fundão, 21941-596 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
2. CLG – Centre for Local Government, University of New England, Armidale, NSW (Australia)

Highlights: • We search for the most efficient cost structure for NSW household waste services. • We found that larger services are no longer efficient. • We found an optimal size for the range 12,000–20,000 inhabitants. • We found significant economies of output density for household waste collection. • We found economies of scope in joint provision of unsorted and recycling services. - Abstract: Across the world, rising demand for municipal solid waste services has seen an ongoing increase in the costs of providing these services. Moreover, municipal waste services have typically been provided through natural or legal monopolies, where few incentives exist to reduce costs. It is thus vital to examine empirically the cost structure of these services in order to develop effective public policies which can make these services more cost efficient. Accordingly, this paper considers economies of size and economies of output density in the municipal waste collection sector in the New South Wales (NSW) local government system in an effort to identify the optimal size of utilities from the perspective of cost efficiency. Our results show that – as presently constituted – NSW municipal waste services are not efficient in terms of costs, thereby demonstrating that ‘bigger is not better.’ The optimal size of waste utilities is estimated to fall in the range 12,000–20,000 inhabitants. However, significant economies of output density for unsorted (residual) municipal waste collection and recycling waste collection were found, which means it is advantageous to increase the amount of waste collected, but maintaining constant the number of customers and the intervention area.

• OSTI ID: 22470245
• Journal Information: Waste Management, Vol. 39; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2015 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0956-053X
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

29 ENERGY PLANNING
POLICY AND ECONOMY
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
COST
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
HOUSEHOLDS
LEGAL ASPECTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MONOPOLIES
MUNICIPAL WASTES
NEW SOUTH WALES
PUBLIC POLICY
RECYCLING
SOLID WASTES
WASTE MANAGEMENT