Factors affecting household-level environmental decision making

Yi, Y., S. Hartloff, and P. Meyer. 1999. “Factors affecting household-level environmental decision making: A three-country comparison of the determinants of household recycling.” Urban Ecosystems 3 (2) (July): 149.

This study examines data from the 1993 International Social Survey Program: Environment and usingfor nineteen countries including the study’ s author’s three target countries– Italy, The Netherlands and Great Britain. The purpose is to examine the similarities and the differences between the three countries.

There were four measurements applied to the three countries; Perceived environmental knowledge, environmental attitudes, recycling attitudes, and recycling behavior.

The results were rather surprising given the common participation of the countries involved. These differences were the mean age, the environmental attitude between the Italians and the Dutch and the recycling behavior between the British and the Italians. These kinds of differences suggest that although there might be a political and economic construct such as the European Union and a consistent intent to recyle, there is still a clear difference between certain factors from country to country. This highlights possible problems in designing and replicating recycling programs.

Other findings suggest that data collected across jurisdictions may distort factors affecting household recycling decisions. It also suggests that perceived costs and benefits are influenced by factors that are not evident at the household level. Those factors might include settlement patterns and attitudes about public land including the costs of using them for waste disposal.

In general, the result is that recycling programs don’t necessarily work from one country to the next unless they are adjusted according to the contexts in which they are implemented.

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.

Social, Cultural and Structural Influences on Household Waste Recycling

Martin, M., I.D. Williams, and M. Clark. 2006. “Social, Cultural and Structural Influences on Household Waste Recycling: A Case Study.” Resources, Conservation & Recycling 48 (4) (October): 357-395. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.09.005.

This is a case study about how effective the methodologies used were in determining how and why recycling is practiced in the subject study.

The original study consisted of a self-administered questionnaire administered to 360 households randomly selected from voter registration records in Burnley Borough. The Asian-British population was surveyed through a group interviews.

The case study supported previous findings such as households were overwhelmingly in favor of recycling, although the amounts recycled were unclear. It was clear in this study, as with other studies elsewhere and throughout the past, that convenience and storage space were major factors in influencing recycling behavior. Other supported findings were that lower income and apartments or flats were also predictors of lower or no participation in recycling.

Another finding is the general dissatisfaction with the way the borough was handling the curbside pickup method, specifically how often the recyclables were collected and the preference for wheeled bins as opposed to bags. In addition, there is a desire to extend the “garden waste” service to include kitchen scraps and compost.

Overall, the Asian-British population were not significantly different in their recycling behavior from those in the rest of the country. In short, ethnicity didn’t make as much of a difference as poverty.

An Integrated Model of Waste Management Behavior

Taylor, Shirley, and Peter Todd. 1995. “An Integrated Model of Waste Management Behavior: A Test of Household Recycling and Composting Intentions.” Environment and Behavior 27 (5): 603 -630. doi:10.1177/0013916595275001.

The purpose of this study was to develop and test a model that integrates attitude and behavior in recycling and composting participation. This is called the integrated waste management model. The basic idea is that actual behavior is influenced by several factors. Factors include Attitudinal Belief Structure, Normative Belief Structure and Subjective Norm. Perceived Behavioral Control is the unifying factor between attitude and behavior.

Attitudinal Belief Structure is the belief that the new innovation will supersede the current one. In addition, the new technology may include other benefits such as economic, image enhancement , convenience and satisfaction.

Normative Belief Structures are the social influences such as family, friends and neighbors. These influences can be quite strong.

Control Belief Structure has to do with past experience, lifestyle and values and how they fit with the new innovation. There is also the belief in the ability to carry out the behavior. The stronger the association with the values and personal beliefs, the more likely the innovation will be adopted.

The result for recycling was positively influenced by attitude and perceived behavior but negatively influenced by subjective norm. This suggests that people will deal with personal inconvenience to realize the benefits of recycling if they are adequately informed.

The result for composting was similar with a few differences. The most important difference suggests that the more compatible composting is with one’s lifestyle the less control there is over the decision to compost.

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.

The Impact of Transient Populations on Recycling Behaviour

Timlett, R.E., and I.D. Williams. 2009. “The Impact of Transient Populations on Recycling Behaviour in a Densely Populated Urban Environment.” Resources, Conservation & Recycling 53 (9) (July): 498-506. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.03.010.

The meaning of “transient” in this study is different than what we might think. Here “transient” means a population that moves frequently from residence to residence. It does NOT mean indigent. This study is on how transient populations might impact recycling in densely populated areas. It also comes from the United Kingdom.

In Portsmouth, a good portion of the households are quite transient for a variety of reasons from a high student and military population to unstable socio-economic pressures. Transience makes measuring a population such as this difficult. The usual method of measurement is by address instead of the individual or family.

What came from this is that longer term residents had the highest amount of recycling behavior because they are settled and have a sense of ownership whether they own or rent. Shorter term residents and the newly arrived had a lower recycling rate partly because they were less invested in the neighborhood, but mostly because they didn’t know their way around the rules and expectations and because they didn’t have enough bins or they had gone missing.

This is portion of the population that is easily overlooked. The United States is famously mobile, and so that is a necessary measurement. However, this aspect will not be measured during this study.