Financing electronic waste recycling

Nixon, Hilary, and Jean-Daniel M. Saphores. 2007. “Financing electronic waste recycling Californian households’ willingness to pay advanced recycling fees.” Journal of Environmental Management 84 (4): 547-559. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.07.003.

This study is focused on one topic: paying a fee to recycle electronic waste such as computers or television sets and how large a fee were participants willing to spend as a percentage of the purchase price of their new item.

There were too few respondents willing to pay 10%, so those responses were combined with those willing to pay five percent.

The study suggests that a majority of Californians support a modest advanced recycling fee of 1%. Generally, the more education a participant had, the more likely they were to pay advanced recycling fees. To narrow it down, respondents between ages 18 to 35 years were the most willing to pay 5% advanced recycling fee whereas those over 35 years old were the least likely. The study also suggested that if the recycling facility was more than 5 miles away from a participant the likelihood of participation dropped.

It comes as a surprise that those who make $40,000 per year or less are much more likely to pay the 5% advanced recycling fee. One theory is that their feeling that their local environment quality is so poor that they might be more likely to pay to improve it.

The authors noted that the findings of this study could not necessarily be extended throughout the rest of the country due to certain biases such as sample bias from mail surveys and a tendency towards older participants.

Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior

Oskamp, Stuart, Maura J. Harrington, Todd C. Edwards, Deborah L. Sherwood, Shawn M. Okuda, and Deborah C. Swanson. 1991. “Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 23 (4) (July 1): 494 -519. doi:10.1177/0013916591234005.

This is an earlier recycling study (1991) that examines the recycling behavior of a small city in California. The variables include age, education, homeownership and several other factors. And how they affect or influence recycling behavior, especially curbside pick-up, which was relatively new at that time.

The outcome of this study is that it confirmed some past research “that different environmentally responsible behaviors have different patterns of antecedents.” However there were significant differences when curbside recycling was introduced.

The first reason given was the convenience of having the collection come to you on a regular basis. The second reason was that it took less space in the home to recycle. The third reason is that the city provides the homeowner with the containers to put the recycling in. The fourth reason is, for lack of a better phrase, peer pressure. The neighbors are doing it.

One major predictor for positive recycling behavior is home ownership, especially if it is a single family home, especially if the family owns it. Another positive predictor was if there had been a past behavior of recycling for cash.

Recycling behavior, in general was more likely in homes where there was a higher level of education attained, and the level of conservation knowledge. It is interesting to note that recycling behavior was not a predictor of other environmentally friendly behavior.

This study has one flaw from the start; the sample was quite small compared to the population, and therefore may have had a higher margin of error.

Ethnic Variation in Environmental Belief and Behavior

Johnson, Cassandra Y., J. M. Bowker, and H. Ken Cordell. 2004. “Ethnic Variation in Environmental Belief and Behavior: An Examination of the New Ecological Paradigm in a Social Psychological Context.” Environment and Behavior 36 (2) (March 1): 157 -186. doi:10.1177/0013916503251478.

This study utilizes the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) to analyze data from the 2000 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. The purpose is to see if the folk ecology of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, native Latins-Americans, non-native Latin-Americans and European Americans is consistent. The theory is that each ethic group has its own cultural view of the environment that they bring with them from their points of origin.

One approach of many that is unique in this study is examining four environmental factors: environmental reading, recycling, joining an environmental group, and nature participation (going to parks or camping). These are all contrasted by ethnicity, political inclinations, education, age and income. The idea was to measure both direct and indirect effects and influences of ethnicity in the environmental outlook.

The general result of this study was that the higher the NEP score, the higher the likelihood of frequent environmental behavior. Before the inclusion of the NEP it was also consistent with expectations that there would be a significant difference between Whites and Blacks in three of the four behaviors, as well as two factors between Whites and native born Latinos and three factors between Whites and foreign born Latinos. Contrary to expectations, Whites and Asians differed in only one factor.

These differences increased dramatically when the NEP was factored in. The net result was that there are differences between ethnicities in the level of environmental participation. Whites had the highest participation in all categories. Asians were next most likely and Blacks and foreign-born Latinos. Native Latinos were in the middle. This held true across all the demographics.

Commingled Versus Separated Curbside Recycling

Oskamp, Stuart, Lynnte Zelezny, P. Wesley Schultz, Sharrilyn Hurin, and Rachel Burkhardt. 1996. Commingled Versus Separated Curbside Recycling: Does Sorting Matter?. Environment and Behavior 28, no. 1 (January 1): 73 -91. doi:10.1177/0013916596281004.

The primary research question of this study is which form of recycling is the most effective. This study focuses on commingled curbside and separated curbside recycling. The purpose is to supply policy makers and researchers with information they might find useful in creating effective recycling programs.

This study is only one of a handful of studies up to that point that had tried to examine the effectiveness of recycling methods in the United States. The statistics cited in the introduction point out the large difference in the recycling rates between the United States and other Western countries.

The sample consisted of two middle class California towns. Three areas were chosen in each town. Each area consisted of two hundred contiguous houses. The socioeconomic status of each area was well represented. One town was given a large receptacle for recyclables, and the other was given several crates, one each for newspaper, glass, No. 1 & 2 plastic and tin and aluminum cans. The larger comingled receptacle accepted a much wider variety if recyclables.

In a nutshell, the town with the large comingled receptacle had a 90% participation rate whereas the town with the separate bins for each type of recyclable had a 77% participation rate. The difference in gallons of waste recycled was some 6:1 in favor of the comingled recyclables.

Water Wise

Hennen, Leah. “Water Wise,” Real Simple 7, no. 3 (2006): 147-152.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed February 10th, 2011).

This article is in question-answer format, which makes it easy to navigate. Unlike some of the articles I have found it does not appear to be a huge proponent of tap water, although it does discuss that the US has some of the cleanest water in the world. It suggests that if one does drink bottled water that they drink a brand belonging to the International Bottled Water Association, as they have stricter standards about the water that they provide to consumers. This article focuses mainly on water in general and answers questions such as whether water can go bad, and how much is really needed per day. Under the section header “Is it safe?” Hennen reports that “9 out of 10 public water systems meet federal health and safety standards, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)” (Hennen 1). Hennen also reports that, according to Steven Patch, Ph.D., an authority of drinking water safety at the University of North Carolina, it is suggested that “you read the water-quality report that your utility is required by law to release each year. [As] large providers are also required to post their reports online” (Hennen 1). This also offers a section which explains the differences between what can be labeled mineral water, purified water, spring water, etc., which I expect that I will use. The list is as follows:

• Artesian water: From a welt that's fed by an underground aquifer. Examples: Fiji Natural Artesian Water, Voss Artesian Water.
• Enhanced water: Fortified with vitamins, minerals, and herbal ingredients, as well as added flavor. Example: Glacéau Vitaminwater.
• Fitness water: With added electrolytes and flavoring or sugar. Some contain caffeine or herbal stimulants, such as taurine and guarana. Example: Hansen's E20 Energy Water.
• Mineral water: From an underground source that contains naturally occurring dissolved solids, such as calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium. Example: Calistoga Sparkling Mineral Water.
• Purified water: Usually tap water that has been treated to remove contaminants. Example: Sam's Choice Purified Drinking Water.
• Sparkling water: With natural or artificial effervescence. Examples: Pure LaCroix Sparkling Water, Schweppes Club Soda.
• Spring water: From an underground source that flows to the earth's surface naturally. Examples: Crystal Geyser Alpine Spring Water, Evian Natural Spring Water.

In general, a lot of the information presented in this source will not be applicable to my research project, except of course the aforementioned tidbits. However, it is very beneficial to have the bottled water “guide” if you will! There are also some other quotes concerning FDA tap water regulations that I expect I will use during the scope of my project.