Impact on knowledge and behaviour of the general population of two different methods of solid waste management: An explorative cross-sectional study

Abstract

The objectives of the present study were to evaluate knowledge among general population about the risks factors of waste management, to estimate the feeling of anxiety concerning the waste, and to compare knowledge of two different methods for collecting municipal solid waste (MSW): a street separate collection system and a door-to-door separate collection system. A cross-sectional study was performed, administering an anonymous questionnaire to 180 inhabitants in Aprilia, Latium, Italy. The study sample consisted of 183 citizens: 64 in the intervention group and 119 in the control group. The intervention was represented by a campaign of door-to-door collection. The correct implementation of separate collection of waste was 87.5% in the intervention group and 63% in the control group (p<0.001). For both groups, the favourite type of waste collection was door-to-door (p=0.013); a high difference concerning the quality of information was found (p<0.0001): in the intervention group, 84% declared to be satisfied (67% sufficient and 17.2% good), while in the control group, 21% declared to be satisfied (16.8% sufficient and 4.2% good). The advice mainly reported from the control group respondents was to increase the size of the information pack (80.7%, p=0.024). The information campaign seemed to increase people’s awareness about the problem, improving the management of waste and household waste. The door-to-door collection was appreciated and preferred by both groups. The adoption of a door-to-door scheme seems to be a winning option mostly because it is supported by an information and education system for the citizens.

Keywords

Behaviour door-to-door kerbside collection system knowledge management participation recycling urban waste

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Corral-Verdugo

(1996) A structural model of reuse and recycling in Mexico. Environment and Behavior 28, 665–696.

Davis

Phillips

Read

. (2006) Demonstrating the need for the development of internal research capacity: understanding recycling participation using the theory of planned behaviour in West Oxfordshire, UK. Resources Conservation and Recycling 46, 115–127.

De Feo

. (2014) Sociological survey in a municipality with a high level separate collection programme in an area of historic unpopularity. Waste Management in press. Epub ahead of print.

De Feo

De Gisi

. (2010) Public opinion and awareness towards MSW and separate collection programmes: a sociological procedure for selecting areas and citizens with a low level of knowledge. Waste Management 30, 958–976.

De Feo

De Gisi

Williams

(2013) Public perception of odour and environmental pollution attributed to MSW treatment and disposal facilities: a case study. Waste Management 33, 974–987.

De Feo

Williams

(2013) Siting landfills and incinerators in areas of historic unpopularity: Surveying the views of the next generation. Waste Management 33, 2798–2810.

DEMO ISTAT. Resident population on January 1st 2011 Comune di Aprilia Italy. DEMO ISTAT. Available at: http://demo.istat.it/pop2011/index.html (consulted June 2013).

Hopper

Nielsen

(1991) Recycling as altruistic behavior: normative and behavioural strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior 23, 195–220.

Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale) (2011). Produzione e raccolta differenziata dei Rifiuti Urbani, Urban Waste Report 2011. Rome: ISPRA. Available at: www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti/rapporto-rifiuti-urbani-2011 (consulted June 2013).

10.

Italian Legislative Decree no. 152 of 3^rd April 2006 concerning ‘Environmental standards’. Available at: http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/deleghe/06152dl.htm (consulted May 2014).

11.

Oom Do Valle

Reis

Menezes

. (2004) Behavioral determinants of household recycling participation : the Portuguese case. Environment and Behavior 36, 505–540.

12.

Purcell

Magette

(2010) Attitudes and behavior towards waste management in the Dublin Ireland region. Waste Management 10, 1997–2006.

13.

Prüss

Giroult

Rushbrook

(1999) Waste minimization, recycling, and reuse. In Safe management of wastes from healthcare activities. Geneva: WHO. Available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/wastemanag/en/ (consulted May 2014).

14.

Refsgaard

Magnussen

(2009) Household behaviour and attitudes with respect to recycling food waste e experiences from focus groups. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 760–771.

15.

Thomas

(2001) Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in Hampshire and Milton Keynes. Resources Conservation Recycling 37, 259–274.

16.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

.; STROBE Initiative (2008) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. British Medical Journal 335, 806–808.

17.

Werner

Makela

(1998) Motivations and behaviors that support recycling. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 373–386.