Economic assessment of MSW reduction policy in the Republic of Kazakhstan using contingent valuation method

The growth of waste, including food waste, is one of the main environmental problems of current time. Our planet is increasingly covered with waste every year, and a large area is formed under landfills. Therefore, the ways to reduce waste effectively are being investigated by worldwide scientists. Composting is one of the proven means of dealing with food (organic) waste. Fortunately, this method of recycling food waste is actively practiced in Kazakhstan. However, statistics show that food waste recycling is still developing slowly. Only 3% of the total amount of waste processed is food waste. To develop effective strategies for addressing environmental programs, scientists propose using the CV method to determine the monetary value of environmental benefits. Furthermore, the examination of household behaviour regarding food waste is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of government environmental programs. The results of this study showed that Kazakhstanis expressed their willingness to support the environmental initiative and pay 10 tenge more for utilities if this money was used to create food industry enterprises. This amount will be 600 million per year. The results of the regression analysis showed the importance of age and leading an environmentally friendly lifestyle in supporting environmental initiatives. Although we consider the results of this study to be preliminary data and continue to work on scaling the sample size, the chosen method of analysis may nonetheless be of interest to other researchers in the field.

1. Prodovol'stvennaja i sel'skohozjajstvennaja organizacija ob#edinennyh nacij. URL: https://www.fao.org/ (data obrashhenija: 21.04.2023). (In Russian).

2. Ardra S., Barua M. Halving food waste generation by 2030: The challenges and strategies of monitoring UN sustainable development goal target 12.3. // Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022. No. 380. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135042. (In English).

3. Jekologicheskij centr CUR. URL: https://csd-center.kz/ (data obrashhenija: 15.09.2023). (In Russian).

4. Ausharipova D.E., Kulumbetova L.B., Tankova Je. (2023) Innovacionnye biznes-modeli dlja razvitija jekologicheskogo predprinimatel'stva v sfere othodov Kazahstana // Nauchnyj zhurnal «Vestnik universiteta «Turan». No. 4(100). (In Russian).

5. Bjuro nacional'noj statistiki agentstva po strategicheskomu planirovaniju i reformam Respubliki Kazahstan. URL: https://www.stat.gov.kz/ (data obrashhenija: 18.02.2024). (In Russian).

6. Ministerstvo jekologii i prirodnyh resursov RK. URL: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/ecogeo (data obrashhenija: 25.01.2024). (In Russian).

7. Bekturova A.G. (2018) Problemy sovershenstvovanija jekologicheskogo zakonodatel'stva Respubliki Kazahstan v oblasti upravlenija othodami proizvodstva i potreblenija // Dissertacija na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni PhD, KazNU im. al'-Farabi. (In Russian).

8. Bekezhanov D. (2017) Problemy i perspektivy utilizacii tverdyh bytovyh othodov v Respublike Kazahstan // Vestnik KazNU. No. 1(81). (In Russian).

9. Bulekova A.A., Gabdullina S. (2021) Problema utilizacii TBO // Vestnik ZKU. No. 1(81). (In Russian).

10. Schreiner J.A., Latacz-Lohmann U. (2015) Farmers’ valuation of incentives to produce genetically modified organism-free milk: Insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany // Journal of Dairy Science. No. 98(11). P. 7498–7509. URL: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9515. (In English).

11. Zhidebekkyzy A., Moldabekova A. (2023) Pro-Environmental Behavior and Household Waste Sorting in Kazakhstan: an Empirical Analysis // Eurasian Journal of Economic and Business Studies. No. 67(1). URL: https://doi:10.47703/ejebs.v1i67.186. (In English).

12. Atinkut H.B., Yan T., Arega Y., Raza M.H. (2020) Farmers’ willingness-to-pay for eco-friendly agricultural waste management in Ethiopia: a contingent valuation // Journal of Cleaner Production. No. 261. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121211. (In English).

13. Kitajbekova S.O., Toktasynov Zh.N., Sarsekova D.N. (2023) Jekonomicheskaja ocenka uslug lesnyh jekosistem v nacional'nom parke «Burabaj» s ispol'zovaniem metoda uslovnoj ocenki // Mnogoprofil'nyj nauchnyj zhurnal «3i: intellect, idea, innovation – intellekt, ideja, innovacija» Kostanajskogo regional'nogo universiteta imeni A. Bajtұrsynұly. No. 2. URL: https://doi.org/10.52269/22266070_2023_2_112. (In Russian).

14. Mogas J., Riera P., Bennett J. (2006) A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions // Journal of Forest Economics. No. 12(1). P. 5–30. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2005.11.001. (In English).

15. Haab T., Lewis L., Whitehead J. (2020) State of the Art of Contingent Valuation // Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/. (In English).

16. Perni Á., Barreiro-Hurlé J., Martínez-Paz J.M. (2021) Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: validity and reliability // Ecological Economics. No. 189. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107144. (In English).

17. Brown T.C. (2003) Introduction to Stated Preference Methods, pp. 99–110. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_4. (In English).

18. Endara P., Wiedmann M., Adalja A. (2022) Consumer willingness to pay for shelf life of high-temperature, short-time-pasteurized fluid milk: implications for smart labeling and food waste reduction // Journal of Dairy Science. No. 106(9). URL: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-22968. (In English).

19. Wu Y., Zhang N., Wang J., Sun Z. (2012) An integrated crop-vermiculture system for treating organic waste on fields // European Journal of Soil Biology. No. 51. P. 8–14. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2012.03.005. (In English).

20. Pramanik S.K., Suja F.B., Zain S., Pramanik B.K. (2019) Journal for Bioresource Technology Reports. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135907. (In English).