Recycling and Ambivalence

Ojala, Maria. 2008. “Recycling and Ambivalence: Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses of Household Recycling Among Young Adults.” Environment and Behavior 40 (6) (November 1): 777 -797. doi:10.1177/0013916507308787.

This Swedish study is different. It is one of only a few that focuses on the recycling habits of young adults. The age range is 20 to 29 with a mean of 25.2 years. This study is also different in that it doesn’t measure either positive nor negative aspects and their affect on recycling rates, but rather how ambivalence plays a role in the process. They actually asked if the respondent thought that recycling made a difference from both appositive and a negative aspect.

Ambivalent reluctant recyclers agreed that recycling was good for the environment and is a civic responsibility, but saw recycling as an inconvenience. They also felt that it was complicated, even though they were not well informed about what they needed to do. There was also a feeling of powerlessness meaning that that their contribution would not ultimately change things. All of this boiled down to an admission that they were too lazy to do it.

Those who were hopeful had more trust in people in the community working together to solve the problem. Contributing to this was the feeling that they were doing something meaningful. Recycling was an act of conscience. Those who were hopeful were also joyful over doing something meaningful and having the chance to contribute to the environmental cause.

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.