People of Lubbock and Recycling Behavior - Research Paper Example

Motivations and Determinants of Recycling Behaviour Introduction Williams et al (2003) dictate that waste management has become a serious priority for governments around the world over the past 15 years. In 2002, for example, 25.6 million tons of household waste was collected in England and Wales, 77% of which ended up in landfill sites, whilst only 13.6% was recycled (Municipal Waste Management Survey 2002). Despite these findings referring to the UK’s waste management problems, they have a worldwide applicability due to the global problems relating to household waste. Firstly, local authorities around the world are running out of space to dispose municipal waste. Secondly, environmental problems associated with the burial of rubbish can have global implications, i.e. the release of methane gas from waste disposal sites increases global warming rates. Thirdly, there are contentious issues to do with public acceptability and health and safety concerns of not wanting to live near land fill sites. Baksi and Long (2009) therefore claim that effective waste management strategies are crucial if governments are to: reduce the amount of household waste being disposed of in land fill sites promote the conservation of natural resources though reducing use of virgin materials increase the amount of household waste being recycled maintain public support decrease the levels of environmental damage caused by landfill sites Following the Brundtland Report (1987), which defined sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’, issues concerning recycling have increased on the US government’s political agenda. For example, Tiller et al (1997) highlight how new federal regulations are increasing the financial costs of disposing municipal waste. As a result, most states have passed recycling regulation laws in order to reduce the amount of waste they send to landfill sites. Municipal waste policy has therefore expanded from one of the mere disposal of waste, to one of sustainable waste management (Taylor, 2000). As a result, Baksi and Long (2009) indicate that the percentage of municipal solid waste recycled in the US has steadily increased from 6.4% (5.6 million tons) in 1960 to 24.9% (63.3 million tons) by 2007. However, implementing new schemes to increase recycling rates is only part of the problem; engaging the public to participate effectively in them is of major concern to many local authorities (Williams, 2003). In Lubbock for example, the waste management survey I conducted indicated that 80% of residents don’t recycle. Thus, if the public are not effectively involved in this ‘apparent culture change’, household waste levels will continue to rise. Local authorities thus play a key role in promoting and ensuring higher levels of recycling through raising environmental awareness and educating the public about the benefits of recycling, and most importantly, providing recycling facilities. The policy of recycling is thus part of a wider strategy to promote sustainable resource management. Basik and Long (2009) claim that the majority of previous studies relating to ‘the recycling problem’ focused on the role of recycling firms, and failed to investigate household waste management behavior. Whilst previous studies offer both academics and policy makers new insights into the restraints imposed by the existence of a competitive recycling sector, they fail to acknowledge the motivations and waste management behaviors of individuals, such as their values, attitudes and socio-demographical characteristics, which Barr et al (2005) cite as significant factors which affect recycling rates. It is therefore the aim of this literature review to explore the influences of household waste management practices through investigating financial incentives and disincentives associated with recycling, i.e. ‘the impact to wallet’, factors which encourage or discourage people recycling, i.e. ‘painfulness of recycling’, and finally I will investigate how people’s attitudes, values and perspectives influence their waste management behavior. Environmental Framework Geographers are divided of the best way to study the people’s attitudes, behaviors and values attached to their environmental actions. Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour provides a way geographers can do this, and helps them understand people’s behaviors and identifies the determinants of sustainable waste management. Figure 1 illustrates the TPB and highlights how a combination of subjective norms, attitudes towards recycling behavior and perceived behavioral control affect social behavior and the likelihood an individual is to engage in sustainable waste management practices. Tonglet et al (2004) have claimed that the TPB is an effective model in assessing the driving forces behind individual’s waste management behaviors. Figure 1 - The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Attitude towards the behaviour Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Perceived behavioural control Adapted from Ajzen (1991) However, research by Barr et al (2001) has concluded that the structure of waste management behavior is complex and they became dissatisfied with the TPB in explaining waste management behavior. They suggest that other important factors have been neglected. It is therefore important for research to draw upon several environmental framework models that explain the interaction of different key variables and factors. One such framework has been designed by Barr et al (2005), which complements the TPB (see Figure 2). It seeks to appreciate how different forms of reported environmental action can be predicted. Figure 2 – Environmental Behaviour Model Situational Variables Environmental Values Behavioural Intention Environmental Behaviour Psychological Variables Adapted from Barr et al (2001) The role of three key factors have emerged that have been shown to influence people’s level of commitment to environmental action. These are: The situational circumstances in which individuals are placed The socio-environmental values individuals hold Attitudes towards specific behaviors I believe that combining the TPB and Barr et al’s environmental framework to predict recycling behavior can provide a better understanding of environmental actions, which De Young (1996) highlights as crucial in order to appreciate the structure of environmental behaviors in general, and the characteristics of the individuals who participate in them in greater detail. In light of the TPB and Barr et al’s (2005) conceptual framework, I will now discuss previous research into recycling behavior through 3 sets of key variables. 1. Economic Variables: Impact to Wallet Due to rising waste disposal costs and increased environmental awareness, Houtven and Morris (1999) claim that communities across the US are turning to unit based pricing systems for financing residential waste management, i.e. ‘pay as you go’, rather than a fixed fee. This provides households with a direct incentive to reduce their disposal of waste because there is typically no unit based charge for recycling (Houtven and Morris, 1999). Taylor (2000) states that there is a need to introduce economic policy in order to correct municipal waste market distortions. For example, until recently households had zero economic incentive to recycle because they paid for their waste collection and disposal services through general taxation and a fixed rate, thereby undervaluing the price of waste disposal. Secondly, public finance practices don’t take the social and environmental costs of waste disposal into account, e.g. harmful health threats and effects from noise, air, water and visual pollution of land fill sites. Taylor (2000) lists 5 common municipal waste economic instruments to try and increase recycling rates; 1. Public Subsidies – introduction of government grants to encourage waste reduction, diversion and other sustainable waste management policies. 2. Disposal Fees – charge businesses and households for disposing waste into landfill sites if they don’t recycle. 3. Product Charge – known as ‘advanced disposal fees’, which are designed to off set the environmental damages items such as batteries and motor oil has on the environment. Also known as the ‘polluter pays principle’, in which those who make the products are taxed for the potential environmental damage their products will cause. 4. Deposit Refund System – simultaneously involves taxes (point of purchase) and subsidies (returning products). An example is plastic drink bottles in Germany, in which customers pay a 25 cents charge at the point of purchase, but once they return their bottles to the store they get a green tax refund. 5. User Charges – flat fee system (FFS) in which households pay a fixed sum of money to have their waste collected (Reschovskey and Stone, 1994). There is also the variable rate system (VRS), in which households pay by the amount of waste they generate. Taylor (2000) indicates that households consider the VRS fair because those who generate more waste pay higher collection fees. However, Taylor also acknowledges that in the initial stages of implementing VRS, households may resent the change, i.e. due to additional tax. However, previous studies indicate that the impacts of unit pricing programs leads to a reduction of municipal waste and increased recycling rates. For example, Houtven and Morris (1999) conducted a study in Marietta, Georgia which measured the variation between 2 waste collection schemes; one in which households would pay $0.75 per trash bag, and the other in which households paid a monthly subscription for a 32 or 20 gallon trash can. The results indicated that residents who paid per trash bag reduced their waste by 51%, compared with a reduction of 20% for residents who paid a monthly subscription for their waste collection. Overall there was an 18% rise in recycling rates amongst both residential groups. Houtven and Morris (1999) conclude that these results suggest that the ‘bag program’ provides people with an incentive to control the quantity of their waste, i.e. through producing less waste, households pay less in garbage collection fees. The trash subscription fee on the other hand relied on a fixed cost, and so residents may not see the need or positive effects of reducing their waste consumption. Houtven and Morris (1999) also highlight that households saved $75 per ton of trash they produced though waste reduction and recycling. However, Taylor (2000) notes 3 limitations of VRS. Firstly, revenues and cash flows to local authorities become less certain due to the varying levels of waste households produce per week, which might strain waste resources. VRS has also resulted in the illegal dumping of waste to avoid additional charges. To combat this problems, Taylor (2000) suggest better education programs, locking commercial and office dump bins, implementing fines, and providing other means of disposing waste could help reduce fly tipping. There is also an argument that VRS is socially regressive. For example, low income families generally live in smaller houses, have more children and have less storage space, which increases the amount of waste they produce, forcing them to pay more fees to have their waste collected. However, Taylor (2000) also argues that VRS could also affect high income families because they spend and consume more products, thereby producing more waste. Tiller et al (1997) have also measured household’s willingness to pay for drop off recycling programs in rural and suburban areas. They found that suburban groups were willing to pay $11.74 per month for recycling facilities, compared with $7.07 for rural residents and $4.05 for people who admitted to never recycling. This indicates that people are willing to pay for recycling facilities in order to reduce their waste disposal fee. However, willingness to pay must be in excess of the net operating cost of recycling programs to make them economically viable, i.e. to cover the costs of collection, transportation, intermediate processing, administration and benefits of not disposing waste in land fill sites. Tiller et al (1997) note that the cost of this amounted to $0.63 per household each month in their Williamson County recycling survey, which indicates that the introduction of recycling facilities would be a profitable and long-term sustainable solution to waste management issues. Financial incentives and economic variables therefore influence and encourage people to recycle more often than they would otherwise. However, as the next section highlights, a range of non-economic determinants also influence recycling behavior. 2. Situational Variables: Painfulness and Convenience of Recycling Halvorsen (2008) argues that if recycling behavior was solely motivated by economic incentives or taxes, then voluntary contributions to recycling would be negligible. However, financial incentives or disincentives are not the only factors that motivate people to recycle, and a range of non-economic incentives exist. For example, in Norway in the late 1990’s, there were no financial incentives or government sanctions imposed on people to recycle. Instead, people took it upon themselves to wash, sort, carry and transport their waste items to recycling points. The introduction of curbside recycling bins also made it easier to recycle, e.g. right on the door step and less time involved. Recycling rates thus increased with the number of waste materials collected by the local council, both at the curbside and in local community centres. Taylor (2000) therefore indicates that there is a need to enhance the convenience and improve recycling facilities and services in order to increase recycling rates. Reschovskey and Stone (1994) argue that every household faces the choice of disposing trash as waste or recycling it and the decision about how to dispose of household waste is associated with an implicit net cost. Boldero (1995) argues that these costs include the amount of effort involved, convenience, storage space and access to recycling schemes. Households therefore choose the waste disposal method least costly to them. This is similar to Baksi and Long (2009) who claim that recycling is costly to consumers in terms of their time and effort. This is due to the organization and commitment needed to recycle effectively, e.g. having to sort though recyclable and non-recyclable items. Baksi and Long (2009) therefore claim that individuals with environmentally positive attitudes are more likely to view recycling as a ‘low cost’ compared to people who aren’t as environmentally conscious, and as a result, they will not only recycle more often, but also have less of an issue in doing so. Lansana (1992) has also shown that recyclers have different motives and concerns for engaging in sustainable waste management behaviours compared to non-recyclers. For example, he found that non-recyclers were more sensitive to issues related to inconvenience than recyclers were to recycling. He also found that recyclers could be distinguished from non-recyclers in whether they believed programs should be voluntary or mandatory and their support of drop-off and curbside programs. Respondents in Lansana’s study also highlighted that the more convenient the locations of curbside recycling facilities, and the longer their opening hours, the decreased amount of municipal waste was thrown into general trash, and the more people recycled. He also found people recycled more if curbside recycling methods were simplified, e.g. disposing materials such as cans, paper boxes, glass into the same bin. Howenstine (1993) also notes location as a key situational factor in determining recycling rates. He found a geographic link between household distance from recycling centres and levels of recycling, in which recycling rates tended to decrease the further away people lived from recycling centres. Access to a curbside recycling bins also resulted in enhanced recycling rates. Tiller et al (1997) also note that location determines the perceived cost of recycling. For example, they compared ease of recycling in rural and suburban areas and found that people living in rural areas which receive no regular garbage collections, already drove their waste to convenience centres, and so the added cost of driving their recycling items was zero. Urban areas however tend to have regular garbage collections, and associated taxes which pay for the service. Implementing recycling schemes in these areas would reduce garbage collection costs, which results in suburban residents placing more value on recycling opportunities. Schultz et al (1995) have also identified knowledge as important in predicting recycling behavior, i.e. the more information a person has about which materials are collected, the more likely that person is to recycle. However, Oskamp et al (1991) have suggested that recycling behaviors maybe less related to knowledge about global environmental issues, but more to do with the specifics of recycling. Nonetheless, various studies including that by Ebreo and Vining (2000) have demonstrated that recyclers have a deeper environmental awareness than non-recyclers. They also highlight the importance of behavioral experience in individuals recycling rates, in which people who have recycled prior to the introduction of curbside recycling schemes are more likely to participate in further enhanced recycling behavior. In order to encourage people to recycle Taylor (2000) suggests a ‘foot in the door technique’. This technique introduces people slowly to the concept of recycling, e.g. recycling drink cans for a week, and then over time it gradually increases their recycling behavior, e.g. they start to recycle several different items such as newspapers, glass bottles, food packaging, etc. Taylor (2000) believes that strategies like this are likely to not only increase, but also maintain people’s recycling behavior. Through compiling a review of the relationship between the situational factors and rates of recycling, a series of reasons for not recycling have become apparent and are presented along with a solution in Figure 3. Figure 3 – Reasons and Solutions of Respondents Who Did Not Recycle Reasons For Not Recycling Solution To Recycle Lack of convenient recycling facilities, inadequate local facilities and information Provide more convenient facilities at a local level, i.e. bottle banks in store car parks Lack of awareness of recycling services, disinterest and lack of storage space Education, publicity and promotion of information to the public Neglect of issues concerning public participation Need for effective marketing and communications to residents Little incentives to recycle and no penalty for non-participation in recycling schemes Prompts and rewards and compulsory legislation Schultz et al (1995) also claim that socio-demographic factors influence people’s participation, motivations, attitudes and behaviours towards waste management issues and offer another way of explaining recycling rates amongst respondents. Schultz et al claim that past research indicates that people with the highest level of environmental concern, who as a result engage in sustainable waste behaviors tend to be young, female, better educated, higher earners, urban dwellers and ideologically liberal. However, this is not conclusive evidence and various other studies question both the existence and direction of the relationship between demographic variables and waste management rates. For example, Oskamp et al (1991) found no relationship between age and self reported recycling amongst community residents in a voluntary curbside recycling programme, whilst Ebreo and Vining (2000) reported a positive relationship, not only of age affecting people’s recycling rates, but also in indicating that older residents were more likely to recycle, compared to younger people like Schultz et al claim. Ebreo and Vining suggest that this could be due to the fact that older retired people have more time on their hands, and so can engage to a greater extent in recycling their household waste. Similarly, people with young children may have little time on their hands and so might not recycle as much. Higher recycling rates were also reported in households with no children, in which Tonglet et al (2004) report that people have more time to recycle. Jacobs et al (1984) also indicate income as another significant socio-demographical factor affecting recycling rates, in which respondents earning higher salaries tended to recycle more. Reschovskey and Stone (1994) suggest this is to do with their higher education levels. This could be because the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to have knowledge about environmental issues, and thus might want to reduce their own waste in order to ‘save the planet’. However, Oskamp et al (1991) found no correlation between education level and recycling rates. Halvorsen (2008) also notes that the more hours worked an individual works, the less likely they are to recycle due to time constraints of recycling. However, Reschovskey and Stone (1994) note that recycling is always going to involve more effort than normal waste disposal due to the increased time and convenience issues. They therefore acknowledge that people who recycle must display greater altruistic tendencies and have stronger levels environmental awareness. 3. Environmental Values And Attitudes Environmental values form a distinct category with which to examine waste management behavior (Barr et al, 2001). Ebreo and Vining (2000) claim that people’s behaviour can be linked to their underlying attitudes towards the environment. Barr et al (2005) reiterate this point and suggest that there is a general agreement that those who value the environment from an eco-centric perspective are more likely than those with anthropocentric values to participate in positive environmental behaviors such as recycling. This is in line with Dunlap and Van Liere’s (1978) New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), in which has been cited as a very significant positive predictor of conservation behavior. However, Oskamp et al (1991) found no relationship between pro-ecology attitudes and behaviours in their study of curbside recycling in California. However, Scott and Willits (1994) point out that overall there is a positive relationship between values and actions relating to participation in recycling schemes. However, Halvarsen (2008) suggests that individuals may feel the need to sympathise verbally with environmental issues, and so appear to be more concerned with the environment than they really are. Social pressures within the community and feeing the need to ‘keep up with appearances’ and gain community respect also contribute towards increased recycling rates. Oskamp et al (1991) also suggest that the relationship between environmental concern and recycling has decreased over the years. They suggest that in the past, conditions in which recycling required a high amount of effort resulted in only people with high environmental concern recycling. However, the increased financial incentives to recycle means people are doing so for more reasons than just altruistic concern for the environment, thus the relationship between environmental concern and recycling seems to have diminished or disappeared. Poole (1992) also indicates that despite 88% of respondents claiming to recycle, it was only the top 20% of these recyclers who contributed 80% of recycled materials. Therefore the relationship between individuals who recycle is also unequal. Barr et al (2005) refer to psychological variables as unique perceptual traits of individuals, that can help explain behaviors and attitudes that can affect waste management actions. Baksi and Long (2009) state that intrinsic costs of pro-environmental behaviors are influenced by personal norms (e.g. self expectations of behavior) and social norms (e.g. beliefs about what other people are doing). For example, Schultz (1995) states that when he informed local residents about what other residents in the La Verne neighbourhood, California, were doing to increase their recycling rates, it led to a 20% rise in recycling rates in the households Schultz contacted. Webster (1975) claims that people who engage in sustainable waste management behaviors are characterised by feelings or moral responsibility towards the environment because they are more aware of environmental problems. De Young (1996) agrees with this point and adds that the personalization of environmental issues, combined with the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations influence individual’s waste management behavior. For example, in terms of the relationship between recycling and altruistic tendencies, Halvorsen (2008) found that those who held strong moral norms felt guilty for not recycling. However, other psychological factors have had conflicting assessments in determining their level of influence of generating positive environmental attitudes and behavior. One such factor is the influence of social pressure in influencing behavior. Brekke et al (2010) claim that ‘duty motivation’, a type of motivation central to recycling behavior in which individual actions are heavily influenced by what others are doing influences people to recycle. It implies a ‘warm glow of giving’, in which people suffer a loss of self image if they don’t fulfil their perceived behavioral responsibilities. On one hand Lam (1999) emphasises that the wider community, friends and relatives formulate and encourage environmental behaviours due to the desire for social recognition within a community. However, Oskamp et al (1991) found no significant link between an individual’s waste behavior compared with that of their wider community. However, Oskamp et al’s findings maybe explained by the fact that other variables may have been more influential in determining sustainable waste behavioral commitment such as time and convenience (Howenstine, 1993). Schulz et al (1995) also found that infrequent recyclers were more likely than frequent recyclers to endorse personal inconveniences and there was a sense of indifference in that people thought that their contribution didn’t make much difference in the long term to the environment. Social-psychological constructs such as moral obligation, responsibility, social desirability and response efficacy have thus been highlighted as significant motivations for environmental action (Barr et al, 2006). Conclusions Over the past 15 years, governments around the world have begun to realize that we are running out of space to dispose our municipal waste. This has prompted them to seek new sustainable methods to manage waste, such as recycling. However, my study of recycling rates in Rubbock indicated that 80% of residents don’t engage in recycling behaviors. Implementing news schemes to increase recycling rates is therefore only part of the problem; engaging the public to participate is a harder challenge (Williams et al, 2003). Recent academic researchers have explored this issue, and as such have investigated the public’s attitudes, values and influences which determine household waste management practices. In order to increase recycling rates amongst the residents of Lubbock, I believe a holistic approach, integrating Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour and Barr et al’s (2005) Environmental Conceptual Framework is necessary in order to provide a better understanding of environmental actions. The literature presented in this review indicates that unit based pricing and variable rate systems (VRS) are the most effective economic means to reduce municipal waste disposal and increase recycling rates (Houtven and Morris, 1999 and Taylor, 2000). However, a range of non-economic factors have also been shown to motivate people to recycle (Halvorsen, 2008), in which effective recycling strategies must be highly convenient for people to use and access. However, Reschovskey and Stone (1994) also acknowledge that’s people’s intrinsic and extrinsic attitudes and values towards the environment affect recycling rates. People who express altruistic tendencies and greater environmentally positive attitudes tend to recycle more frequently. These findings indicate that policy makers also need to raise people’s environmental awareness in order for them to develop an eco-centric perspective and values towards sustainable waste management issues. Bibliography Ajzen, I (1991) ‘The Theory of Planned Behaviour’ Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes (50) pp 179-211. Baksi, S and Long, N (2009) ‘Endogenous Consumer Participation and the Recycling Problem.’ Austrilian Economic Papers. Blackwell Publishing. Barr, S Gilg, A and Ford, N (2001) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Understanding and Analysing Attitudes Towards Household Waste Management’ Environment and Planning A (33) pp 2025-2048. Barr, S Gilg, A and Ford, N (2005) ‘Defining the Multi-Dimensional Aspects of Household Waste Management: A Study of Reported Behaviours in Devon.’ Resources, Conservation and Recycling (45) pp 172-192. Barr, S Gilg, A and Ford, N (2006) ‘Sustainable Lifestyles: Framing Environmental Action in and Around the Home.’ Geoforum (37) pp 906-920. Brekke, K, Kipperberg, G and Nyborg, K (2010) ‘Social Interaction in Responsibility Ascription: The Case of Household Recycling.’ Land Economics (86) 4 pp 766-784. Boldero, J (1995) ‘The Prediction of Household Recycling of Newspapers: The Role of Attitudes Intentions and Situational Factors.’ Applying Social Psychology (5) pp 440-462. Brundtland Report (1987) ‘Towards Sustainable Development’ in Our Common Future, pp 43-66. Oxford University Press. Oxford. De Young, R (1996) ‘Some Psychological Aspects of Reduced Consumption Behaviour: The Role of Intrinsic Motivation and Competence Motivation.’ Environmental Behaviour (3) pp 358-409. Dunlap, R and Van Liere, K (1978) ‘The New Environmental Paradigm.’ Journal of Environmental Education (9) pp 10-19. Ebreo, A and Vining, J (2000) ‘Motives as Predictors of the Public’s Attitudes Toward Solid Waste Issues.’ Environmental Management (25) pp 153-168. Halvorsen, B (2008) ‘Effects of Norms and Opportunity Cost of Time on Household Recycling.’ Land Economic (84) 3 pp 501-516. Houtven, G and Morris, G (1999) ‘Household Behavior Under Alternative Pay-As-You-Throw Systems for Solid Waste Disposal.’ Land Economics (75) 4 pp 515-537. Howenstine, E (1993) ‘Market Segmentation for Recycling.’ Cited in Schultz, P, Oskamp, S and Mainieri, T (1995) ‘Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology (15) pp 105-121. Jacobs, H, Bailey, J and Crews, J (1984) ‘Development and Analysis of a Community Based Resource Recovery Program.’ Cited in Schultz, P, Oskamp, S and Mainieri, T (1995) ‘Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology (15) pp 105-121. Lam, S (1999) ‘Predicting Intentions to Conserve Water from the Theory of Planned Behaviour, perceived Moral Obligation and Percieved Water Right.’ Cited in Barr, S Gilg, A and Ford, N (2006) ‘Sustainable Lifestyles: Framing Environmental Action in and Around the Home.’ Geoforum (37) pp 906-920. Lansana, F (1992) ‘Distinguishing Potential Recyclers from Non-Recyclers: A Basis for Developing Recycling Strategies.’ Cited in Schultz, P, Oskamp, S and Mainieri, T (1995) ‘Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology (15) pp 105-121. Municipal Waste Stratgey: Knowsley (Accessed 02nd May 2011). Available at www.merseysidewda.gov.uk Oskamp, S et al (1991) ‘Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behaviour.’ Enviroenmt and Behaviour (23) pp 494-519. Poole (1992) ‘Participation in Residential Curbside Waste Reduction Programs.’ Resource Recycling (7) pp46-51. Reschovsky, J and Stone, S (1994) ‘Market Incentives to Encourage Household Waste Recycling: Paying For What You Throw Away.’ Journal of Policy Analysis ad Management (13) 1 pp 120-139 Schultz, P, Oskamp, S and Mainieri, T (1995) ‘Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology (15) pp 105-121. Scott and Willis (1994) ‘Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: A Pennsylvania Survey.’ Cited in Barr, S Gilg, A and Ford, N (2001) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Understanding and Analysing Attitudes Towards Household Waste Management’ Environment and Planning A (33) pp 2025-2048. Taylor, D (2000) ‘Policy incentives to Minimize Generation of Municipal Solid Waste’ Waste Management and Research. Sage Publication. Available at http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/18/5/406 Tiller, K, Jakus, P and Park, W (1997) ‘Household Willingness to Pay for Dropoff Recycling.’ Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (22) 2 pp 310-320. Tonglet, M, Philips, P and Read, A (2004) ‘Determining the Drivers for Householder Pro-Environmental Behavior: Waste Minimisation Compared to Recycling.’ Resource, Conservation and Recycling (42) pp 27-48. Webster, F (1975) ‘Determining the Characteristics of the Socially Conscious Consumer.’ Cited in Schultz, P, Oskamp, S and Mainieri, T (1995) ‘Who Recycles and When? A Review of Personal and Situational Factors.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology (15) pp 105-121. Williams, D and Kelly, J (2003) ‘Green Waste Collection and the Publics Recycling Behaviour in the Borough of Wyre, England.’ Resources, Conservation and Recycling (2) pp 139-160. Read More