This study examines the nature of public participation in implementing household source reduction of municipal solid waste in order to inform the development of waste policy. The objectives are to determine the degree of public participation in household source reduction, the importance given to this waste strategy relative to other waste management approaches with an emphasis on recycling, but also including landfilling and incineration, the motivations behind its practice and the demographic and attitudinal correlates of its practitioners. The method used was a telephone survey of residents in a community in Connecticut, U.S.A. The results were analysed using descriptive and correlational statistics.
The results indicate that the activity of source reduction, using a variety of measures, is being widely practiced. Over 50% of respondents participated in at least one source reduction activity. However, the intensity of participation was low, with many individuals participating only infrequently in the activity. Furthermore, the amount of material potentially reduced through source reduction in the home is small. There was an equal degree of public support for recycling efforts with a large percentage of respondents considering recycling to be more important than source reduction. Demographic variables in this community did not prove to be significantly correlated with source reduction attitudes and behaviour.
One policy implication is that the home may not be the most effective place for source reduction, as contrasted with recycling, given the limited number of source reduction activities available in the home. A second policy implication is that mechanisms to facilitate source reduction need to be developed. Finally, policy makers need to concentrate educational efforts towards public recognition of both what constitutes source reduction and the importance of this activity.
Allaway, D. (1992) Does source reduction work? Resource Recycling (July), 53-61.
2.
Andress, C. (1990) Federal legislation initiatives to reduce municipal solid waste. Resource Recycling (October), 43-48.
3.
Anon. (1993) The state of garbage in America. Biocycle (May), 42-50.
4.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1990) Disposable versus Reusable Diapers: Health, Environmental, and Economic Comparisons.
5.
Babbie, E. (1990) Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA, U.S.A.: Wadsworth Inc.
6.
Cabaniss, A.D. (1993) Recycling education: the critical link. Resource Recycling (February), 62-65.
7.
City of Greensboro, North Carolina (1992) Waste Stream Characterization Project. Greensboro , North Carolina, U.S.A.: HDR Engineering, Inc.
8.
City of Greensboro, North Carolina, et al. ( 1993) Source Reduction: A Guide for North Carolina Local Governments and Solid Waste/Recycling Professionals.
9.
Commoner, B. (1990) Can capitalists be environmentalists? Business and Society Review75, 31-35.
10.
Conn, W.D. (1988) Reducing municipal solid waste generation: lessons from the seventies. Journal of Resource Management and Technology16, 24-27.
11.
Cross, J.F. (1992) Pollution prevention and sustainable development . Renewable Resources Journal (Spring), 13-17.
12.
De Young, R. (1990) Recycling as appropriate behavior: A review of survey data from selected recycling education programs in Michigan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling3, 253-266.
13.
De Young, R. (1988-89) Exploring the differences between recyclers and non-recyclers: the role of information. Journal of Environmental Systems18, 341-350.
14.
De Young, R. (1986) Some psychological aspects of recycling: the structure of conservation satisfactions. Environment and Behavior18, 435-449.
15.
De Young, R. (1985-86) Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: the role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems15, 281-293.
16.
Elliott, M.L.P. (1984) Improving community acceptance of hazardous waste facilities through alternative systems for mitigating and managing risk. Hazardous Waste1, 397-410.
17.
Ellis, R.A. & Disinger, J.F. (1981) Project outcomes correlate with public participation variables. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation53, 1564-1567.
18.
Ervin, C. (1991) Source reduction: getting beyond the rhetoric. Pollution Prevention Review1, 107-118.
19.
Everett, J.W. & Pierce, J.J. (1993) Curbside recycling in the U.S.A.: convenience and mandatory participation. Waste Management & Research11, 49-61.
20.
Fishbein, B. (1994) Germany, garbage, and the green dot. New York, U.S.A.: Inform.
21.
Folz, D.H. (1991) Recycling program design, management, and participation: a national survey of municipal experience. Public Administration Review51, 222-231.
22.
Folz, D.H. & Hazlett, J.M. (1991) Public participation and recycling performance: explaining program success. Public Administration Review51, 526-553.
23.
Geller, E.S. & Lehman, G.R. (1986) Motivating desirable waste management behavior: applications of behavioral analysis. Journal of Resource Management and Technology15(2&3), 58-68.
24.
Gilnreiner, G. (1994) Waste minimization and recycling strategies and their chances of success. Waste Management & Research12, 271-283.
25.
Goldberg, D. (1990) The magic of volume reduction. Waste Age (February), 98-104.
26.
Granzin, K.L. & Olsen, J.E. (1991) Characterizing participants in activities protecting the environment: a focus on donating, recycling, and conservation behaviors . Journal of Public Policy & Marketing10, 1-27.
27.
Grogan, P. & Schwartz, B. (1991) Strategic shift to source reduction. Biocycle (January), 28-30.
28.
Habicht, F.H. (1992) Memorandum on EPA Definition of Pollution Prevention (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA).
29.
Hockett, D., Lober, D.J. & Pilgrim, K.Determinants of per capita MSW generation in the southeastern U.S . Journal of Environmental Management (forthcoming).
30.
Jacobs, H.E. & Baily, J.S. (1982) Evaluating participation in a residential recycling program. Journal of Environmental Systems12, 141-152.
31.
Kashmanian, R., Ferrand, R., Stoeckle, A. & Kuusinen, T. (1990) Source reduction and recyclability: recent marketplace activities. Resource Recycling (July), 84-89.
32.
Khator, R. (1993) Recycling: a policy dilemma for American states ? Policy Studies Journal21, 210-226.
33.
Lavrakas, P.J. (1993) Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selecting, and Supervision. Newbury Park, California, U.S.A.: Sage Publications.
34.
Lehrberger, C. (1988) Diapers in the Waste Stream: A Review of WasteManagement and Policy Issues (December).
35.
Levenson, H. (1993) Municipal solid waste reduction and recycling: implications for federal policymakers. Resources, Conservation and Recycling8, 21-37.
36.
Los Angeles Times (1989) National Public Opinion Survey (in the U.S.A.).
37.
Luyben, P.D. & Baily, J.S. (1979) Newspaper recycling: the effects of rewards and proximity of containers. Environment and Behavior11, 539-557.
38.
Macdonald, D. & Vopni, P. (1994) Policy barriers to 50% diversion of municipal solid waste. Waste Management & Research12, 257-270.
39.
Mersky, R.L. & Mathew, K.O. (1989) The effects of income and education on participant behavior in a mandatory newspaper recycling program. Journal of Resource Management and Technology17, 75-79.
40.
Miranda, M.L., Everett, J., Blume, D. & Roy, Jr. B.A. (1994) Market-based incentives and residential municipal solid waste. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management13, 681-698.
41.
Mishkin, A.E. (1989) What does 'the hierarchy' dictate?Waste Age (December), 141-142.
42.
Mohai, P. (1992) Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources5, 1-19.
43.
Motameni, R. & Falcone, T. (1990) The application of Martin Fishbein's theory of reasoned action in solid waste management and recycling. Journal of Resource Management and Technology18(3&4), 144-150.
44.
National Governors Association (1990) Curbing Waste in a Throwaway World. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: National Governor's Association.
45.
O'Hare, M., Bacow, L. & Sanderson, D. (1983) Facility Siting and Public Opposition. New York, U.S.A.: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
46.
ORS Publishing (1992) INSIGHT: Into American Life and Opinions Revealed by Polls and Surveys: 1986-1991 (Tallahassee, Florida, U.S.A.).
47.
Owens, W.L., Conn, W.D. & Muller, W. (1991) Broadening public involvement in municipal solid waste management. Journal of Resource Management and Technology19, 96-102.
48.
Portney, K.E. (1991) Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities: The Nimby Syndrome. New York, U.S.A.: Auburn House.
49.
Rathje, W. (1989a) Rubbish! The Atlantic Monthly (December), 99-109.
50.
Rathje, W. (1989b) The three faces of garbage-measurements, perceptions, behaviors. Journal of Resource Management and Technology17, 61-65.
51.
Rathje, W. & Murphy, C. (1992) Rubbish! The archaeology of garbage. New York, U.S.A.: Harper Collins.
52.
Reschovsky, J.D. & Stone, S.E. (1994) Market incentives to encourage household waste recycling: paying for what you throw away. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management13, 120-139.
53.
Reid, D.H., Luyben, P.D., Rawers, R.J. & Baily, J.S. (1976) Newspaper recycling behavior: the effects of prompting and proximity of containers. Environment and Behavior8, 471-482.
54.
Roberts, L. (1990) Counting on science at EPA. Science249, 616-618.
55.
Roper Organization (1985-1993) POLL: Public opinion on line . Storrs, CT, U.S.A.
56.
Roper Organization (1991 ) Sorting Out the Garbage: American Looks at the Consumer Solid Waste Issue. Public Opinion Poll Commissioned by Citizens for theEnvironment, U.S.A.
57.
Selke, S.E. (1991) Evaluating a source reduction opportunity. Solid Waste & Power (June), 28-33.
58.
Shapek, R.A. (1993) Data collection and analysis to improve the quality and effectiveness of recycling education programs. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling9, 223-234.
59.
Sherman, S. (1991) Local government approaches to source reduction . Resource Recycling (September), 112-119.
60.
Sinclair, S.M., Bender, M.I.T. & Reed, F.C. (1993) Household hazardous waste: important research findings . Resource Recycling (May), 42-46.
61.
Skumatz, L.A. (1991) Variable rates for solid waste can be your most effective recycling program. Journal of Resource Management and Technology19, 1-12.
62.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (1991) A Technical Framework for Life Cycle Assessments . Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: SETAC .
63.
Steuteville, R. (1992) Taking the lead in urban recycling. Biocycle (November), 30-33.
64.
Suflita, J.M., Gerba, C.P., Ham, R.K., Palmisano, A.C., Rathje, W.L. & Robinson, J.A. (1992) The world's largest landfill . Environmental Science & Technology26, 1486-1495.
65.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technological Assessment (1989) Facing America's Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
66.
U.S. Department of Commerce (1990) 1990 Census of Population and Housing: Connecticut. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
67.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989 ) The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
68.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992 ) Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.: 1992 Update. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
69.
Van Liere, K.D. & Dunlap, R.E. (1980) The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly44, 181-197.
70.
Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (1989) An evaluation of the public response to a community recycling education program. Society and Natural Resources2, 23-36.
71.
Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (1990) What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior22, 55-73.
72.
Wilson, J.Q. (1973) Political Organizations. New York, U.S.A.: Basic Books.
73.
Witmer, J.F. & Geller, E.S. (1976) Facilitating paper recycling: effects of prompts, raffles, and contests. Journal of Applied BehaviorialAnalysis9, 315-322.
74.
World Wildlife Fund and the Conservation Foundation (1991) Getting at the Source: Strategies for Reducing Municipal Solid Waste. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
