This study aimed to investigate the relationship between cultural components and municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal individual practices in the context of Brazilian and German university students. To achieve this goal, we chose to conduct qualitative research with ethnographic inspiration, exploratory and descriptive nature. For one year, the authors collected data through participant and non-participant observations, interviews and photographs from both countries. The results showed that waste disposal is a constant concern in Germany. Waste separation for recycling is cultural and is the primary waste disposal practice in the country. In Brazil, the primary practice is to dispose of all waste in just one bin. Several elements of the cultural components are involved in these practices, revealing a significant sustainable cultural difference between the two countries. One of the limitations of the study is Brazil itself. Brazil is a continental and multi-cultural country. The results present a perceived country general view; but maybe in other cities inside Brazil, some differences could be present. As an empirical contribution, the study presents a lack of public policy and gives suggestions to improve the structure (material culture) and communication (and language) of the practices through actions. These actions can be the implementation of the selective collection in the city, improved enforcement of laws or even new public policies aimed at waste management. The originality of the article consists in investigating and comparing the disposal practices of MSW of Brazilian and German students in the light of culture. This study innovates bringing an empirical analysis of cultural components little studied.
Abrelpe (2017). Panorama of Solid Waste in Brazil in 2017. Retrieved May30, 2018, from http://abrelpe.org.br/download-panorama-2017/ (In Portuguese).
2.
AjzenF. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
3.
Al-NaqbiA., & AlshannagQ. (2018). The status of education for sustainable development and sustainability knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of UAE University students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 566–588.
4.
AndrewsM. (1995). Against good advice: Reflections on conducting research in a country where you don’t speak the language. Oral History Review, 22(2), 75–86.
5.
BabcockR., & Du-BabcockB. (2001). Language-based communication zones in international business communication. The Journal of Business Communication, 38(4), 372–412.
6.
BardinL. (2010). Content analysis. LDA.
7.
BarthA., AdomssentM., FischerD., RichterS., & RieckmannR. (2014). Learning to change universities from within: A service-learning perspective on promoting sustainable consumption in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 71–72.
8.
BatingaG., PintoM., & GuimarãesL. (2019). For an understanding of the material world: A biography of the brand ‘Apple’. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 17(2), 263–276.
9.
BhattacherjeeA. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. Textbooks Collection. University of South Florida.
10.
BourdieuP. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Oxford University Press.
11.
BourdieuP. (1990). The logic of practice. Polity Press.
12.
BurrelG., & MorganG. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Heineman.
13.
CegliaD., LimaS., & LeocádioA. (2015). An alternative theoretical discussion on cross-cultural sustainable consumption. Sustainable Development, 23(6), 414–424.
14.
CraigC. S., & DouglasS. P. (2006). Beyond national culture: Implications of cultural dynamics for consumer research. International Marketing Review, 23(3), 332–342.
15.
ElliottH., & WrightT. (2018). Canadian student leaders’ conceptualizations of sustainability and sustainable universities. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 12(2), 103–119.
16.
FallahranjbarN., ChenH., & DietrichU. (2018). Environmental design and planning strategies to mitigate waste condition in nightlife zones: The case of Reeperbahn street, Hamburg, Germany. Urban Growth and the Circular Economy, 179, 281–291.
17.
FettermanD. M. (2010). Ethnography step by step. SAGE Publications.
18.
FindlerF., SchönherrN., LozanoR., ReiderD., & MartinuzziA. (2019). The impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development: A review and conceptualization. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(1), 23–38.
19.
FischerR. (2009). Where is culture in cross cultural research? An outline of a multilevel research process for measuring culture as a shared meaning system. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 9(1), 25–49.
20.
Fortaleza (2015, April28). Law n.10.340.
21.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press.
22.
HalkierB., Katz-GerroT., & MartensL. (2011). Applying practice theory to the study of consumption: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 3–13.
23.
HallE. T. (1959). The silent language. Doubleday.
24.
HallE. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor.
25.
HargreavesT. (2011). Practicing behavior change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behavior change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99.
26.
HirschmanE. C. (1986). The effect of verbal and pictorial advertising stimuli in aesthetic, utilitarian and familiarity perceptions. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 27–34.
27.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. SAGE Publications.
28.
HofstedeG. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw Hill.
29.
Jaeger-ErbenM., & OffenbergerU. (2014). A practice theory approach to sustainable consumption. GAIA, 23(1), 166–174.
30.
JonasM., LittigB., & WroblewskiA. (2017). Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories (1st ed.). Springer.
31.
KastanakisM., & VoyerB. G. (2014). The effect of culture on perception and cognition: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Research, 67(4), 425–433.
32.
KazaS., YaoL. C., Bhada-TataP., & Van WoerdenF. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development. World Bank.
33.
KopninaH. (2019). Ecocentric education: Student reflections on anthropocentrism–ecocentrism continuum and justice. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 5–23.
34.
LimaV., & PessôaL. (2018). The consumption of technology as a structural element of identity: A theoretical and methodological discussion based on French Semiotics. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 16(4), 679–691.
35.
LowiT. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.
36.
LunaD., & GuptaS. F. (2001). An integrative framework for cross-cultural consumer behavior. International Marketing Review, 18(1), 45–69.
37.
MurrayJ. (2018). Student-led action for sustainability in higher education: A literature review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(6), 1095–1110.
38.
NellesM., GrünesJ., & MorscheckG. (2016). Waste management in Germany – Development to a sustainable circular economy?Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 6–14.
39.
PolaviejaJ. G. (2015). Capturing culture: A new method to estimate exogenous cultural effects using migrant populations. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 166–191.
40.
ReckwitzA. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
41.
RomeroC., LarocheB. M., AurupG., & FerrazS. (2017). Ethnicity and acculturation of environmental attitudes and behaviors: A cross-cultural study with Brazilians in Canada. Journal of Business Research, 82, 300–309.
42.
RøpkeI. (2009). Theories of practice — New inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecological Economics, 68, 2490–2497.
43.
SauerbronnJ., TeixeiraC., & LodiM. (2019). Health, aesthetics, and efficiency: Relationships between women’s eating practices and their bodies. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 17(2), 389–402.
44.
SchwartzS. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values?Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.
45.
SchatzkiT. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the Social. Cambridge University Press.
46.
SchatzkiT. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. Pennsylvania State University Press.
ShethJ., GardnerD. M., & GarretD. E. (1988). Marketing theory: Evolution and evaluation. John Wiley & Sons.
49.
ShoveE., & PantzarM. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices: Understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1), 43–64.
50.
ShoveE., PantzarM., & WatsonM. (2012). The dynamics of social practice. SAGE Publications.
51.
UNEP (2014). UNEP on Brazil. Retrieved April01, 2018, from https://www.unenvironment.org/
52.
WardeA. (2014). After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(3), 279–303.
53.
WhorfB. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. MIT Press.
