Explaining the Performance of Mature Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Programs

Abstract

This paper assesses the contextual, programmatic and decision-making factors that affect the performance of mature municipal solid waste recycling programs. Tobit models were prepared for cities with populations of less than or more than 25 000 to facilitate analysis of recycling performance. Recycling participation rates were found to be higher among cities in both groups that offered more convenient recycling programs and whose residents had a higher mean household income. The larger cities that achieved higher participation rates employed a decision-making process known as 'collaborative learning', imposed sanctions on improper sorting recyclable materials, and had a larger non-minority population. Among smaller cities, higher participation was attained by using variable fee pricing for solid waste collection and by mandating household participation. The study findings suggest that future research should focus on improved ways to characterize and measure the decision-making processes used to make policy changes in order to facilitate analysis of the causal and temporal relationships between decision-making processes and program performance.

Differences in waste generation, waste composition, and source separation across three waste districts in a New York suburb

“…Also, note that most of those papers tracked participation rates not separation rates. Attitudes that have been related to environmentally conscious activity and behaviors, and recycling participation, include: concern for the community (Vincente and Reis 2008;Tonglet et al 2004); convenience and effort (Barr and Gilg 2005;Peretz et al 2005;Sterner and Bartlings 1999); positions regarding morality (Berglund 2006), the environment generally (Best and Kneip 2011), and government (Guerin et al 2001); social norms (Halvorsen 2008) and social interactions (Shaw 2008); and, personality and past experience (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977). One explanation for psychological linkages to recycling participation is that highly visible curbside recyclables collection programs increase social pressure (Vining and Ebreo 1992).…”

Getting People to Behave: Research Lessons for Policy Makers

“…If compliance involves perceptions of costs by the target population—costs in time, in out‐of‐pocket costs or foregone income, or consistency with values—it may be possible to increase compliance by lowering those costs (see, e.g., Herd et al ). Increased household recycling rates in wealthy countries are associated with “convenience” factors such as curbside recycling, provision of recycling bins, and frequent collection, for example (Ando and Gosselin ; Peretz, Tonn, and Folz ). A recent Facebook campaign to increase organ donation registrations provided direct links to state online registration sites, lowering the risk of procrastination and the costs of registration (Cameron et al )…”

One Without the Other? Behavioural and Incentive Policies for Household Waste Management

“…For example, Oskamp et al (1991) and Guagnano et al (1995) show that the simple fact of an available selective sorting container increases the volume of recycled materials. Many studies show that people are likely to participate in an activity if it does not require them to expend too much effort, that is, if it is not too constraining (Vining and Ebreo, 1990;Folz, 1991;De Young, 1993;Guagnano et al, 1995;Knussen et al, 2004;Peretz et al, 2005). Folz (1991) shows that recycling behaviour is greater when the level of effort required is low (shorter distance to a recycling station, no need for sorting by materials, kerbside waste collection).…”