See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6687977

Factors and values of willingness to pay for

improved construction waste management - A
perspective of Malaysian...

Article in Waste Management · February 2007

DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.08.013 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

34 317

4 authors, including:

Rawshan Ara Begum Siwar Chamhuri

National University of Malaysia National University of Malaysia
87 PUBLICATIONS 668 CITATIONS 244 PUBLICATIONS 896 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joy Jacqueline Pereira

National University of Malaysia
82 PUBLICATIONS 604 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EP-2014-014 View project

Developing a Multi-criteria Decision Support System for Urban Disaster Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rawshan Ara Begum on 02 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Waste Management 27 (2007) 1902–1909
www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Factors and values of willingness to pay for improved construction

waste management – A perspective of Malaysian contractors
a,*
Rawshan Ara Begum , Chamhuri Siwar a, Joy Jacqueline Pereira a, Abdul Hamid Jaafar b

a
Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, 43600 Selangor D.E., Malaysia
b
Faculty of Economics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, 43600 Selangor D.E., Malaysia

Accepted 24 August 2006

Available online 15 November 2006

Abstract

Malaysia is facing an increase in the generation of waste and of accompanying problems with the disposal of this waste. In the last two
decades, extensive building and infrastructure development projects have led to an increase in the generation of construction waste mate-
rial. The construction industry has a substantial impact on the environment, and its environmental effects are in direct relation to the
quality and quantity of the waste it generates. This paper discusses general characteristics of the construction contractors, the contrac-
tors’ willingness to pay (WTP) for improved construction waste management, determining factors which affect the amount of their will-
ingness to pay, and suggestions and policy implications in the perspective of construction waste management in Malaysia.
The data in this study is based on contractors registered with the construction industry development board (CIDB) of Malaysia.
Employing the open ended contingent valuation method, the study assessed the contractors’ average maximum WTP for improved con-
struction waste management to be RM69.88 (1 US$ = 3.6 RM) per tonne of waste. The result shows that the average maximum WTP is
higher for large contractors than for medium and small contractors. The highest average maximum WTP value is RM88.00 for Group A
(large contractors) RM78.25 for Group B (medium-size contractors) and RM55.80 for Group C (small contractors). One of the contri-
butions of this study is to highlight the difference of CIDB registration grade in the WTP for improved construction waste management.
It is found that contractors’ WTP for improved waste collection and disposal services increases with the increase in contractors’ current
paid up capital. The identified factors and determinants of the WTP will assist the formulation of appropriate policies in addressing the
construction waste problem in Malaysia and indirectly improve the quality of construction in the country.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction source of waste generation in the central and southern

Malaysia is facing an increase in the generation of waste
and accompanying problems related to its disposal. In the
last two decades, extensive building and infrastructure
development projects have led to an increase in the gener-
ation of construction waste material. In Malaysia, data is
not readily available on the current structure of construc-
tion waste flows by the source of generation, type of waste,
intermediate and final disposal and the amount of waste
reduced at source, reused or recycled on-site or off-site. A
study by Nasir et al. (1998) provides a breakdown by
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 89214162; fax: +60 3 89255104.
E-mail address: rawshan01@yahoo.com (R.A. Begum).
region of Malaysia: 36.73% from household waste,
28.34% from industrial and construction waste, and
34.93% from other sources (market and commercial waste,
institutional waste, landscaping waste and street sweeping
waste). This shows that in Malaysia construction waste
forms a significant portion of wastes that is finally disposed
of in landfills.
The construction industry has a substantial impact on
the environment, and its environmental effects of this
industry are in direct relation to the quality and quantity
of the waste it generates. Despite the massive amount
and complexity of waste produced, the standards of waste
management in the country are still poor (Nasir et al.,
1995). These include outdated and poor documentation

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2006.08.013
 R.A. Begum et al. / Waste Management 27 (2007) 1902–1909
of waste generation rates and its composition, inefficient
storage and collection systems, disposal of municipal waste
with toxic and hazardous waste, indiscriminant disposal or
dumping of wastes and inefficient utilisation of disposal
site space. In Malaysia, the literature on economic valua-
tion or contractors’ willingness to pay (WTP) for
improved construction waste management is limited. Most
of the studies on solid waste management are descriptive in
nature. To date there has been few studies conducted to
estimate WTP for solid waste management activities
(Mourato, 1999; Othman, 2002). According to the contin-
gent valuation literature, WTP should reflect the value to
the community of having improved environmental quality.
From an economic perspective, the goal is to determine the
value to the community of having such a management sys-
tem and to use this value in the decision-making process so
that the full cost of waste management is recovered. In the
absence of a market for a service or goods, as with the
environment, people are simply asked what they would
do in a hypothetical situation. This method is known as
contingent valuation (CV). CV involves obtaining direct
information from individuals about their willingness to
pay or accept money for changes in environmental quality.
CV has been used in the valuation of public goods, mainly
in the valuation of the environment (Krutilla, 1967; Boyle
and Bishop, 1987; Mitchell and Carson, 1989). According
to Kotchen (2000), the contingent valuation method
(CVM) measures such values by employing survey ques-
tions to elicit people’s stated preferences for environmental
intermediate goods, such as compost (Bandara and Tsidell,
2004). Recently, Danso et al. (2006) used CVM for the
analysis of perceptions and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for
composted municipal solid and faecal waste among urban
and peri-urban farmers and other potential compost users.
The most prominent research has been done in evaluating
benefits of curbside recycling for households (Creel and
Loomis, 1997; Caplan et al., 2002; Aadland and Caplan,
2003; Basili et al., 2006). The monetary valuation of an
environmental good is usually based on the monetary
value that individuals place on it. The maximum amount
of money an individual is willing to pay for obtaining a
benefit or avoiding a loss in most situations reflects the
intensity of his preferences for such a benefit or loss
(Markandya, 1998; Huhtala, 1999; Basili et al., 2006).
His preferences in turn are based on the values he attaches
to goods. The maximum WTP can be considered an
expression of the individual’s values. Analogously, the
minimum willingness to accept (WTA) is an amount of
money considered as compensation for foregoing a benefit
or for incurring a loss and this reflects the value of such a
benefit or loss.
This paper discusses general characteristics of the con-
tractors, contractors’ WTP for improved construction
waste management, determining factors which affect the
amount of their willingness to pay, and suggestions and
policy implications in the perspective of construction waste
management in Malaysia.
1903
2. Survey design, data collection and analytical model
Data was collected through interviews with contractors
registered with the CIDB of Malaysia (registration with
CIDB is obligatory for all contractors) from October
2003 to March 2004 in the Klang Valley, specifically in
Kajang, Petaling Jaya, Subang Jaya and Seri Kembangan.
In the construction industry, there are seven categories
such as G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6 and G7 of local contrac-
tors in which a total of 5696 contractors have been regis-
tered in the Selangor (CIDB, 2003). In this study, the
‘‘purposive stratified random sampling’’ method was used
focusing on three major groups of contractors. These are:
Group A comprised of G6 and G7 contractors, Group B
comprised of G4 and G5 contractors, and Group C for
G1, G2 and G3 contractors. The final survey was based
on 130 samples of contractors: 35 from Group A, 35 from
Group B and 60 from Group C. The sample represents 2%
of the total registered contractors in Selangor. Interviews
were based on a set of questionnaires that was pre-tested
and modified before being used in the survey. The study
was based on the open ended CVM in the survey for col-
lecting information about the willingness to pay of contrac-
tors (Begum, 2005). In addition, the contractors were
provided with a scenario for improved waste collection
and disposal services proposed by a private waste collec-
tion and disposal servicing agency (details of scenario in
Appendix I). Based on this scenario, the contractors were
free to decide their WTP.
To determine the factors that affect the willingness of
contractors to pay for improved construction waste man-
agement, this study followed a multiple regression model.
The ordinary least square (OLS) method was used to esti-
mate the parameters in multiple regression models. The
significant relationships between dependent and indepen-
dent variables was examined by the value of the correla-
tion coefficient (R) in two variable cases and for the
multivariate case, t-values, R2, adjusted R2 and F-values
was estimated. As such, the model assesses the relation-
ship between various factors and the contractors’ willing-
ness to pay. In this regression analysis, the maximum
amount of contractors’ WTP is regressed due to its quan-
titative nature by several independent variables. The
model is:
Y ¼ b0 þ b1 X 1 þ b2 X 2 þ b3 X 3 þ b4 X 4 þ b5 X 5 þ b6 X 6
þ b7 X 7 þ b 8 X 8 þ e ð1Þ
where, b0 is constant term, b1–b8 are the coefficients of
independent variables and e is the error/disturbance term.
Y is the dependent variable, (maximum amount of contrac-
tor’s WTP in RM).
In the interview process, at first contractors were asked
whether they were willing to pay (or not) for improved con-
struction waste management services, specifically waste col-
lection and disposal services. If yes, contractors were asked
how much they would be willing to pay (by the open ended
1904 R.A. Begum et al. / Waste Management 27 (2007) 1902–1909

contingent valuation questionnaire). Additional questions
related to the contractors general characteristics, waste col-
lection systems and other related issues were considered to
obtain the estimates for the explanatory variables in the
multiple regression model. Most of the variables derived
from the survey and which have been considered relevant
from theoretical point of view were included as explanatory
variables. Table 1 provides a summary of the explanatory
variables used in the multiple regression model of the
study.
3. Results and discussion
3.2. WTP responses of the contractors
Table 3 summarises the responses of the contractors
according to their willingness to pay. This study found that
68.5% of the contractors showed a positive WTP response
for improved construction waste collection and disposal
services in their construction sites and 31.5% of the con-
tractors were not willing to pay. Views on willingness to
pay were different among the groups, with the highest num-
ber of contractors that are willing to pay reported in Group
C (73.3%), followed by 71.4% in Group A and 57.1% in
Group B.

3.1. General characteristics of the sample 3.3. Willingness to pay values of the contractors

Table 2 summarises the general characteristics of the
respondents. The category distribution in the samples is
26.9% for Group A (G6 and G7), 26.9% for Group B
(G4 and G5) and 46.2% for Group C (G1, G2 and G3).
The selected samples are quite representative of the general
building and construction contractors of the Klang Valley.
In this survey, 19.2% of the respondents are public compa-
nies and 80.8% are private limited companies.
Table 4 summarises the maximum WTP values (RM per
tonne) and their respective frequencies among contractors
from the three groups. The results show that 24% of the
Group A contractors reported RM100 WTP per tonne of
construction waste collection and disposal services, and
20% reported RM150 and RM50 per tonne. For Group
B, 20% of contractors reported RM100 and RM70 WTP
per tonne of waste, and 15% expressed a WTP value of

Table 1
Summary of the explanatory variables used in the multiple regression model
Independent variable Definition Type of variable Expected effect on WTP
typecomp Type of company based on paid up capital (X1) Categorical +
1 = Other
2 = Public company
3 = Private limited company
experien Experience in construction work (in years) (X2) Continuous and +
quantitative
groupa Group A (G6 and G7) contractors (X3) Dichotomous ±
1 = Group A
0 = Otherwise
paidup Contractor paid up capital (X4) Continuous and +
quantitative
colecton Frequency rate of waste collection in the construction site (X5) Ordinal categorical +
0 = Donot know
1 = Other
2 = No schedule
3 = Once a month
4 = Once a week
5 = Two times a week
6 = Three times a week
7 = Everyday
repairab Buying repairable, refillable and durable materials (X6) Dichotomous ±
1 = Yes
0 = No
willing Willing to pay more for improved waste collection and disposal Dichotomous ±
services (X7)
1 = Agree
0 = Not agree
satisfac Satisfaction level of the existing waste collection and disposal services Ordinal categorical 
(X8)
0 = Not applicable
1 = Very dissatisfied
2 = Dissatisfied
3 = Satisfied
4 = Very satisfied
 R.A. Begum et al. / Waste Management 27 (2007) 1902–1909 1905

Table 2 Table 4
General characteristics or information of the sample Contractors’ willingness to pay values and their respective frequencies
Variable Number of respondents Percentage (%) Maximum WTP Frequency of the WTP Percentage of the
Value (RMa per Contractors
Respondent’s category
tonne)
Group A (G6 and G7) 35 Group Group Group Group Group Group
Group B (G4 and G5) 35 26.9 A B C A B C
Group C (G1,G2 and G3) 60 46.2
5 – – 3 – – 6.8
Type of Company 10 – – 4 – – 9.1
Public company 25 19.2 20 – 1 2 – 5.0 4.5
Private limited company 105 80.8 25 – – 1 – – 2.3
Others 30 – 2 2 – 10.0 4.5
40 1 – 5 4.0 – 11.4
Construction related education 50 5 3 10 20.0 15.0 22.7
Among employees 60 2 – 3 8.0 – 6.8
Not applicable 3 2.3 70 4 4 5 16.0 20.0 11.4
Course certificate 17 13.1 75 – 1 3 – 5.0 6.8
Diploma 37 28.5 80 2 2 1 8.0 10.0 2.3
Degree 65 50.0 90 – 1 – – 5.0 –
Post Graduate 8 6.2 100 6 4 2 24.0 20.0 4.5
Experience in construction works (in years) 130 – 1 – – 5.0 –
2–5 years 53 40.7 150 5 – – 20.0 – –
6–10 years 40 30.7 165 – – 1 – – 2.3
11–15 years 21 16.0 175 – – 1 – – 2.3
16–20 years 9 6.9 200 – 1 1 – 5.0 2.3
21–25 years 3 2.3 Total 25 20 44 100.0 100.0 100.0
26–30 years3 2.3 a
1 US$ = 3.6 RM
31–35 years 1 0.8
Current paid up capital (RMa)
No response 9 6.9 The result shows the average maximum willingness to
30 000–75 000 11 8.5
pay value of the contractors in the three groups. The aver-
>75 000–150 000 56 43
>150 000–250 000 29 22.3 age maximum amount that the 89 respondents reported
>250 000–500 000 12 9.2 being willing to pay for collection and disposal services is
>500 000–1 000 000 6 4.6 RM69.88 per tonne. The study also shows that the highest
>1 000 000–2 000 000 2 1.5 average maximum WTP value is RM88.00 for Group A,
>2 000 000–2 500 000 2 1.5
RM78.25 for Group B and RM55.80 for Group C contrac-
>2500000–3000000 2 1.5
>3 000 000–6 500 000 1 0.8 tors. However, the results indicate that the average maxi-
a mum willingness to pay values tend to be higher for the
1 US$ = 3.6 RM
larger contractors such as Group A (G6 and G7), com-
pared to the medium-size contractors such as Group B
Table 3 (G4 and G5) and the small contractors as Group C (G1,
WTP responses of the contractors G2 and G3).
Category Responses
Yes No 3.4. Relationship between maximum amount of WTP and
Number Percent Number Percent
category of contractors and paid up capital
Group A 25 71.4 10 28.6
Group B 20 57.1 10 42.9
The study shows that the relationship between the max-
Group C 44 73.3 16 26.7 imum WTP value and the category of contractors is posi-
Totala 89 68.5 41 31.5 tive (Pearson correlation 0.183) and statistically
a
Indicates significant at 0.01 level. significant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05). This means that
the maximum amount of WTP increases with the higher
category of contractors; for example the Group A maxi-
RM50. In the case of Group C, around 23% of contractors mum WTP is higher than that for Group B. On the other
reported their maximum WTP value as RM50 and 11% hand, the Group B maximum WTP is higher than that of
reported RM70 and RM40 per tonne. However, the will- Group C.
ingness to pay values of RM40 is the lowest and RM150 In addition, the results also show a positive and direct
is the highest in Group A. The lowest WTP value is (Pearson correlation 0.170) relationship between the maxi-
RM20 for Group B and RM 5 for Group C, and the high- mum WTP value for improved waste management services
est WTP value is RM200 for Group B and Group C. It is and contractors’ paid up capital, and is statistically signif-
found that none of the contractors are willing to pay more icant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05). This explains that for con-
than RM200 (Begum, 2005). tractors whose paid up capital is higher, their maximum
1906 R.A. Begum et al. / Waste Management 27 (2007) 1902–1909
WTP is also higher; and, conversely, those contractors with
lower paid up capital have a lower maximum WTP. The
reason behind this is that the contractors with higher paid
up capital are larger contractors than the contractors with
lower paid up capital, and larger contractors can afford
more money for improved waste management.
3.5. Estimated multiple regression model for determining
factors of the contractor’s willingness to pay
It is noted that there are seven categories of local con-
tractors (G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6 and G7) in the construc-
tion industry of Malaysia. As described previously, the
study samples were divided into three groups – Group A
(G6 and G7), Group B (G4 and G5), and Group C (G1,
G2 and G3) – based on their paid up capital, tendering
capacity and minimum personnel resources requirement.
The results of the study show that Group A contractors
generally engage private waste collectors and they are will-
ing to pay RM88.00 per tonne for waste collection and dis-
posal services. Contractors in other categories tend to
practise self disposal. Group B is willing to pay RM78.25
and Group C RM55.80 per tonne for waste collection
and disposal services. However, the study applied a multi-
ple regression model to explain the factors affecting con-
tractors’ WTP for improved waste management services.
The estimated results of the multiple regression model on
the contractors’ willingness to pay are summarised in Table
5.
Most of the explanatory variables are significantly
related to the contractors’ willingness to pay, which is dis-
cussed below.
 The coefficient value of the variable, contractor’s type of
company, indicates that contractors that are public com-
panies are more willing to pay than contractors that are
private limited companies. It shows that public con-
struction companies are potentially inclined to contrib-
Table 5
Results of the multiple regression analysis for the determinants of contractors’ willingness to pay
Variables
Constant
Type of company (X1)
Experience in construction works (in years) (X2)
Group A (G6 and G7) contractors (X3)
Paid up capital (X4)
Frequency rate of waste collection in the construction site (X5)
Buying repairable, refillable and durable materials (X6)
Willing to pay more for improved waste collection and disposal services (X7)
Satisfaction level of the existing waste collection and disposal Services in construction site’s (X8)
Standard error of the estimate
F-value
Durbin–Watson
Y is the maximum amount of contractors’ willingness to pay. Figures in parentheses denote the t-values for the regression coefficients.
a
Indicate significant at 0.01 level.
b
Indicate significant at 0.05 level.
c
NS: Indicates not significant at 0.10 levels.
ute to environment by improving construction waste
collection and disposal services. In line with this study,
Basili et al. (2006) also showed that commercial firms
have a negative relation to the WTP.
 The negative coefficient of the variable, experience in
construction works, indicates that contractors with less
experience are more willing to pay for the improved con-
struction waste management services assuming other fac-
tors are constant. In the survey, most of the contractors
(about 72%) have 2–10 years experience while almost
28% of the contractors have experience ranging from
11–13 years. In fact, newly established contractors are
more conscious about waste collection and disposal ser-
vices, and that they are willing to pay for these services.
 The positive coefficient of the variable, contractors’ paid
up capital, shows that the higher the paid up capital, the
higher the WTP value, compared to those contractors
who reported lower levels of paid up capital.
 When the other factors are constant, this finding indi-
cates that contractors who collect their waste frequently
are more willing to pay than the contractors who do not
collect waste frequently. It seems reasonable since the
contractors who collect waste frequently could have a
better understanding of the improved waste collection
and disposal services.
 The result shows that contractors who practice source
reduction, such as buying repairable, refillable and dura-
ble materials, are more willing to pay than those who do
not practice source reduction.
 The positive coefficient of the variable, WTP more for
improved waste collection and disposal services, indi-
cates that for contractors who agree to pay more for
these services, their maximum WTP value is higher than
those contractors who do not agree. This is expected if
other variables remain constant.
The variables that show expected coefficient signs but
that are insignificant are explained below:
Estimated coefficient (b) Standard error
b
52.511 (2.023) 25.953
15.873 (1.985)b 7.997
1.163 (2.408)b 0.483
2.638 (0.396)c 6.662
0.00009 (0.000)b 0.000
4.299 (2.144)b 2.005
13.378 (1.985)b 6.738
68.447 (10.842)a 6.313
6.288 (1.276)c 4.929
32.6849
19.328
1.927
 R.A. Begum et al. / Waste Management 27 (2007) 1902–1909
 Group A shows a positive relation with WTP. The posi-
tive coefficient shows that the larger the contractor, the
higher the WTP amount compared to the medium and
small categories of contractors. This result seems rea-
sonable since Group A contractors are the largest con-
tractors in the construction industry and also have
higher paid up capital, which has a positive and signifi-
cant effect on the willingness to pay for improved waste
collection and disposal services.
 The variable, satisfaction levels of the existing waste col-
lection and disposal services, seems to be negatively cor-
related to WTP. The reasoning behind this correlation
is, if the contractors’ satisfaction level about the present
waste collection and disposal services is higher, it can be
expected that they would not be willing to pay more
money for the improved waste collection and disposal
services. Similarly, the negative coefficient shows that
contractors who have a lower level of satisfaction with
the present services are willing to pay more for improved
waste collection and disposal services. This result is sup-
ported by the findings of Huhtala (1999), which showed
that those who stated they had problems with their cur-
rent garbage disposal service were often dissatisfied;
these respondents tend to be more likely to favour
recycling.
The explanatory factors that have a positive effect on
the contractors’ WTP are Group A contractors; current
paid up capital; frequent rate of waste collection in the
construction site; buying repairable, refillable and durable
materials; and willingness to pay more for improved waste
collection and disposal services. On the other hand, fac-
tors such as type of company, experience in construction,
and satisfaction level with existing waste collection and
disposal services have a negative effect on the willingness
to pay. The factors determined in this study are not
directly comparable to those reported in the literature
(Huhtala, 1999; Caplan et al., 2002; Aadland and Caplan,
2003; Danso et al., 2006; Basili et al., 2006) because the
features of the contractors’ WTP and the factors that
affect it are not same as those related to households or
residents. However, the positive relation obtained could
be compared with WTP found in the literature. As can
be seen from the literature, income has a positive effect
on WTP (Viniegra et al., 2001; Caplan et al., 2002; Danso
et al., 2006; Basili et al., 2006); experience has a negative
relation with WTP (Danso et al., 2006) and the negative
relationship between age and WTP (Viniegra et al.,
2001; Caplan et al., 2002; Basili et al., 2006). These liter-
ature can be indirectly supported to the findings of this
study.
3.5.1. Goodness of fit of the model
We test goodness of fit for the model with some diag-
nostic tests which fulfil the following criteria of good
results. First, the adjusted R2 value (which is a measure
of goodness of fit of the estimated regression model) of
1907
0.532 depicts a good fitting of the model, which defines
that 53% of the variation in change of the contractors’
willingness to pay could be explained by the independent
variables in the model. In this model, the observed R-
value of 0.749, R2-value of 0.561, and the F-test shows
that the estimated regression is quite meaningful in the
sense that the dependent variable is related to each of
the specified explanatory variables. The linear relation
of the model is highly significant (the p value for the
F-test is less than 0.0001). Second, the signs for the esti-
mated coefficients are consistent with the theoretical or
prior expectations. Third, most of the estimated coeffi-
cients are statistically significant at the 0.01 and 0.05
level, which is significantly different from zero. To iden-
tify the occurrence of multicollinearity, the correlation
matrix of the explanatory variables is studied. The results
of this multiple regression model show the best in the
sense of involving no multicollinearity, that is, ensuring
no two independent variables have a correlation in excess
of 0.70. This means that the independent variables are
not too highly related to each other. Moreover, the study
employed the technique of collinearity diagnostics to
eliminate the problem of multicollinearity. The eigen-
values of the explanatory variables are also studied by
factoring the scaled (diagonal elements are 1 0 s), uncen-
tered cross products matrix of the explanatory variables.
Eigenvalue provides an indication of how many distinct
dimensions are among the explanatory variables. In this
model, several eigenvalues of the explanatory variables
are not close to 0, thus the variables are expressed to
not be intercorrelated, and the matrix is showed to be
efficiently conditioned.
4. Conclusions and policy implication
The study showed that 68% of the surveyed contractors
reported a positive willingness to pay for improved con-
struction waste collection and disposal services while the
rest were not willing. Contractors reported that they are
willing to pay a maximum of RM69.88 per tonne on aver-
age for waste collection and disposal services, but none
were willing to pay more than RM200 per tonne. The result
indicates that the average maximum willingness to pay for
the large contractors is higher than for the medium and
small contractors. One of the contributions of this study
is to highlight the difference of CIDB registration grade
in the WTP for improved construction waste management.
During the survey, the cost for waste collection and dis-
posal services was on the order of RM50.00 per tonne.
The costs are expected to rise due to the closure of dumping
sites in the Klang Valley. Increasing costs make it more
important for source reduction, reuse and recycling prac-
tices to come into play; it is expected that the construction
industry will intensify efforts on source reduction, reuse
and recycling.
The findings of the model conclude that the factors
affecting contractors’ willingness to pay are: type of com-
1908 R.A. Begum et al. / Waste Management 27 (2007) 1902–1909

pany, years of experience in construction, contractors size
category, paid up capital, frequency of existing waste col-
lection, source reduction practices and satisfaction levels
towards the existing waste collection and disposal services.
Contractors’ willingness to pay for improved waste collec-
tion and disposal services increases with the increase in
company size category and paid up capital. The identified
factors and determinants of the WTP will assist in the for-
mulation of appropriate policies in addressing the con-
struction waste problem in Malaysia and indirectly
improving the quality of construction in the country.
The result of the study suggests that government can
intervene to improve waste collection and disposal services
driven by the private sector. For example, by gradually
I. Scenario for the respondent
If any private waste collection and disposal servicing
agency provides improved waste collection and disposal ser-
vices for the construction contractors (those contractors
are already disposing their waste by the private contrac-
tors, for them, this private agency will provide improved
waste collection and disposal services rather than existing
services), in that case this study wants to see your willingness
and capacity. The agency’s goal will be reduced, reused and
recycled of construction waste materials and then proper
disposal. It is assumed that the contractors will get the fol-
lowing benefits from the private agency’s improved waste
collection and disposal services.

Short term Benefits:

-Free information regarding construction waste management & Disposal

systems

-Free training programs for sub contractors and workers with detailed
instructions on waste reducing, reusing and recycling techniques, waste
sorting and storage methods of construction waste materials.

-Free waste sorting facilities e.g. facilitate source-separated containers with

Benefits from Agency labeling different types of waste such as concrete, wood, metal, glass,
plastic etc for using ( those waste material can not possible to put in the bin
or container, can be kept in a specific area from where the agency can
collect time to time).

- Everyday waste collection from the construction sites.

Long term Benefits:
- Less chance of
- The agency will not leave any waste materials in the construction sites at
ground water
the collecting time. So, no waste will be physically present on your
contamination
construction sites.
- Increase public
image concerning
- The agency will also clean the containers from time to time for
environment
cleanliness of construction sites. As a result, your construction site will be
- In future Lower price
clean and healthy environmental place.
of recycling materials
-Save Landfill space.
- Finally, contractors could save time and cost of disposal ( transportation
and disposal charge). So contractors will benefit economically and
environmentally.

increasing the landfill charges to RM200 per tonne of waste
and beyond, government can ensure that contractors will
immediately take measures to recycle their waste materials.
The government can also provide incentives for initiation
of downstream industries for construction waste recycling.
By making these policies, the government can ensure that
construction waste is reduced, reused, recycled and prop-
erly disposed.
Acknowledgements
This paper is part of the research project entitled ‘‘Waste
Minimisation and Recycling Potential of Construction
Materials’’ funded by the Construction Industry Develop-
ment Board (CIDB) of Malaysia. The project is a collabo-
ration between the Institute for Environment and
Development (LESTARI) of Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia and the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia
(FRIM).
At first, the collected waste will be brought in the
agency’s recycling centre for recycling and composting of
waste materials. After recycling, some waste (those that
are suitable) will be sent to the incineration plant for energy
recovery. The rest will be properly disposed at construction
and demolition landfill or Govt. designated land.
In this research, the contractor or representative of the
company will be asked to make a payment per tonne of
waste for this improved waste collection and disposal ser-
vice. For this, some contractors may be willing to pay more
and others may be less. As regards their willingness to pay,
they are completely independent to make decision how
much they willing to pay.
References
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), 492–502.
 R.A. Begum et al. / Waste Management 27 (2007) 1902–1909
Bandara, R., Tsidell, C., 2004. The net benefit of saving the Asian
elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study in Colombo, Sri
Lanka. Journal of Ecological Economics 48, 93–107.
Basili, M., Matteo, M.D., Ferrini, S., 2006. Analysing demand
for environmental quality: A willingness to pay/accept study
in the province of Siena (Italy). Waste Management 26, 209–
219.
Begum, R.A., 2005. Economic Analysis on the Potential of Construction
Waste Minimisation and Recycling in Malaysia. Ph.D. thesis, Uni-
versiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Boyle, K.J., Bishop, R.C., 1987. Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analyses: a
case study involving endangered species. Water Resources Research 23
(5), 943–950.
Caplan, A.J., Grijalva, T.C., Jakus, P.M., 2002. Waste not or want not? A
contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options.
Ecological Economics 43, 185–197.
CIDB, 2003. The nation’s builders and contractors directory 2001–2002.
Construction Industry Development Board, Malaysia. Available from:
<http://www.cidb.gov.my>.
Creel, M., Loomis, J., 1997. Semi-nonparametric distribution-free dichot-
omous choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Eco-
nomics and Management 32, 341–358.
Danso, G. Drechsel, P., Fialor, S., Giordano, M. 2006. Estimating the
demand for municipal waste compost via farmers’ willingness-to-pay
in Ghana. Waste Management.
Huhtala, A., 1999. How much do money, inconvenience and
pollution matter? Analysing households’ demand for large-scale
recycling and incineration. Journal of Environmental Management
55, 27–38.
View publication stats
1909
Kotchen, M.J., 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivation, and contingent
valuation of non-use values: a case study involving endangered species.
Ecological Economics 23, 93–107.
Krutilla, J., 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review
56, 777–786.
Markandya, A., 1998. The valuation of health impacts in developing
countries. Planejamento and Polı́ticas Públicas, Italy.
Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using surveys to value public goods:
the contingent valuation method. Washington DC, Resources for the
Future.
Mourato, S., 1999. Household Demand for Improved Solid Waste
Management in Malaysia. Paper presented in the Workshop on
Economic Valuation of Environmental Resource, organized by EPU
and DANCED, Renaissance Palm Garden Hotel, Puchong, May 13–15.
Nasir, M.H., Rakmi, A.R., Zamri, I., Saifullah, R., 1995. Existing Solid
Waste Management and problems in Malaysia. In: Privatisation of
Solid Waste management in Malaysia. Tabung Haji Technologies,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mohd. Nasir Hassan, M.K., Yusoff, W.N.A., Sulaiman, Rakmi A.,
Rahman. 1998. Issues and problems of solid waste management in
Malaysia. In: Proceedings on National Review on Environmental
Quality Management in Malaysia: Towards the Nest Two Decades.
pp. 179–225.
Othman, J., 2002. Household Preferences for Solid Waste Management in
Malaysia. Economy and Environment Program for South East Asia
(EEPSEA) Publications, <http://www.eepsea.org>.
Viniegra, M.E.I., Cortes, I.I., Cuevas, E.M. 2001. Economic valuation of
the environmental impact of solid waste management: a case study.
USA: University of Americas-Puebla.