Participation in curbside recycling schemes and its variation with material types

Environmental and Social Sustainability of the Proximity Waste Collection System: A Case-Study Evaluation at an Italian Local Scale

“…Particularly, the possibility to count exactly the number of set-outs by each user led to reliable estimations of the frequency rates and of the participation rates in placing out the URW on a monthly basis, suggesting that a similar assessment procedure could be extended to all waste categories. This last aspect appears quite relevant since that, up to now, on the base of the scientific literature on the topic, the preferred form of observing these behavioural patterns has always been by directly surveying the households or the users [22] or by submitting questionnaires, via postal or face-to-face, i.e., by questionable methods given that people's claims do not always reflect their actions [24,25]. Referring to the currently reported case study, the estimations performed within the frequency analysis of the San Costanzo population, have shown that about the 57% of users of the total area usually set out the URW five times per month at most beginning from the implementation of the proximity waste collection system, by highlighting indirectly their marked tendency to recycle.…”

“…Additionally, given the detail about the total number of users (those receiving the fee for the waste collection) in the San Costanzo municipality in the year 2012, a specific and original participation rate dealing with the setting out of the URW was calculated for the complete case study area. Following the model suggested by Woodard et al [22] on the participation rate by households towards recyclable materials in UK countries in particular, this new specific participation rate was uniquely referred to by the URW. It was calculated as the ratio between the average number of users actively placing out the URW at least once in a month of 2012 and the resulting total number of users of the San Costanzo municipality for the same year.…”

Pursuing Sustainability via Reverse Logistics: The Symbiosis Effect Between the Local Authorities and Householders

“…In prior studies, personal factors such as working status and social norms toward situational factors were not conclusive evidence with regards to symbiosis effect (Keramitsoglou and Tsagarakis, 2013). Previous recycling studies mostly focus on either operational (situational factors after Woodard et al, 2006;Jahre, 1995) or purely behavioral (personal factors after Thogersen, 2006). Consequently, recycling studies conducted to determine the effects of a novel recycling design are normally unable to clarify the reason behind why and if such households' recycling attitude and behaviour have truly changed (Woodard et al, 2006;Lyas et al, 2005;Jahre, 1995).…”

“…Previous recycling studies mostly focus on either operational (situational factors after Woodard et al, 2006;Jahre, 1995) or purely behavioral (personal factors after Thogersen, 2006). Consequently, recycling studies conducted to determine the effects of a novel recycling design are normally unable to clarify the reason behind why and if such households' recycling attitude and behaviour have truly changed (Woodard et al, 2006;Lyas et al, 2005;Jahre, 1995). Woodard et al (2006) study were concerned with the level of recycling rate before and after an introduction of recycling schemes whereby the finding did show a positive relationship between the facilitation of the recycling scheme with the participation of the selected residential.…”

“…Then the composite personal factors with the exception of personal knowledge and number of years from householder's recycling experience are extended to individual attributes of situational factors (engagement, convenience, accessibility and availability) ( Table. 3). Individual knowledge and recycling experience are considered central components from personal attributes based on previous empirical studies on HRB (Woodard et al, 2006).The results showed that the personal factors had a significant relationship with engagement (p < 0.01) with positive correlation (r (412) = +0.71); as well as convenience (p < 0.01) with positive correlation (r (412) = +0.44) and accessibility and availability (p < 0.01) with positive correlation (r (412) = +0.27). Similar to Kandulapati & Bellamkonda work (2014), a service recovery is important when the applicable situational factors available to online buyers.…”