In order to reduce municipal waste generation at the source, it is important for the recycling rate and in-home disposal rate to rise. With regards to recycling, with the implementation of new systems in recent years, a generally supportive social consensus has formed. On the other hand, with regards to raising the in-home disposal rate, because of many factors that vary from region to region, it is difficult to achieve uniform progress in this area across the nation. Moreover, apart from regional differences there is also a certain amount of user opposition to be expected against efforts to transfer some of the burden of waste management costs to the individual user. In order for policy in this area to make progress, along with continuous development of waste management technology, it is important to make users aware of the costs involved and encourage them not just to consider waste management as a no-cost municipal service. Using the Double-Bounded DCCVM (Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Method), we have attempted to elucidate the value in monetary terms at which the users, or the demand side, estimate household solid waste disposal services to be worth-services which have been treated up until now as non-marketable. We have also attempted to elucidate factors that influence users' assessment of the benefit value of the services and to what degree these factors influence their willingness to pay for them. According to the results of this evaluation, the following points became clear. First, since waste management service is considered in economic terminology, as a superior goods of high necessity, the amount respondents were willing to pay tended to increase with income level. Secondly, there was a tendency for respondents who actively practiced waste reduction and who recognized waste disposal problems as serious to be more willing to pay for such services than those who did not. Also, respondents living in single dwelling unit homes displayed a lower willingness to pay than those living in multiple dwelling unit complexes such as apartments. Third, the factor of possible extended future benefit from the services (long term residence in Kitami City), proved to have a significant influence on the amount respondents were willing to pay for waste disposal services. Fourth, when the average amount that respondents indicated in the survey, they were willing to pay for waste disposal services was compared to the actual expenditure per household of Kitami City on household solid waste disposal, the former was found to be higher by an estimated absolute value of equivalent surplus of ¥12, 167 per household per year.