Can Downstream Waste Disposal Policies Encourage Upstream "Design for Environment"?

By Margaret Walls, P. Calcott. 2000

172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence (2009, background): “As Calcott and Walls (2000) argue, downstream solutions such as disposal fees only influence upstream behavior when there is a fully functioning recycling market in which recyclers pay each household for each recycled item and the price varies with the value of recyclable components of the product.”
Stakeholder Perspectives on E‐Waste Take‐Back Legislation (2013, background): “…in the environmental economics literature, part of which focuses on how the socially optimum amount of waste generation and disposal can be ensured (e.g., Palmer et al. 1996; Palmer and Walls 1997, 1999; Fullerton and Wu 1998; Calcott and Walls 2000, 2002; Walls and Palmer 2000; Walls 2003, 2006).”
Product Reuse in Innovative Industries (2013, background): “From a practical perspective it is known that such taxes are difﬁcult to implement (Calcott and Walls 2000).”
Impact of Take‐Back Regulation on the Remanufacturing Industry (2017, background): “Early papers (e.g., Calcott and Walls 2000, Calcott and Walls 2005, Palmer and Walls 1997, Walls 2001, Walls et al. 2005) compared policies such as taxes, deposit/refund schemes, disposal fees, and recycling subsidies in terms of their ability to achieve social optimality.”