Effect of Design Variables On Participation in Residential Curbside Recycling Programs

Abstract

This research examines how each of the design variables associated with the design of residential curbside recycling programs affects the participation rate, as well as the effect of interactions between the variables. The evaluation of each design variable includes a literature review and an analysis of the results of six published surveys of curbside recycling programs. The results of this research show that there is no single ideal design for residential curbside recycling programs, but that a variety of combinations of design variables have proven to be successful. This suggests that when designing a recycling program, the costs, needs and goals of the community should be significant factors while taking into consideration the effect of some design variable options on participation. Based on these results, four residential curbside recycling programs were designed: two to maximize participation rates without significant regard to cost; and the other two with the goal of achieving a balance between participation rate and program cost. © 1997 ISWA

Evaluation of recycling programmes in household waste collection systems

“…In general, the correlation between environmental attitude and actual behaviour is rather weak (Diekmann & Preisendorfer 1998, Gatersleben et al 2002. Harder et al (2006) and Noehammer & Byer (1997), among others, used participation rate to measure the degree of success in source-sorting programmes. An obstacle to drawing the correct conclusions is the lack of stringent, standardized measurement methods for the quantification and characterization of household waste flow, which makes comparisons of different collection systems difficult (Dahlén & Lagerkvist 2008, European Commission 2004.…”

“…Forty-three factors reported to influence household waste composition are presented in Table 1. Houtven & Morris 1999, Linderhof et al 2001, Noehammer & Byer 1997, Reichenbach & Bilitewski 2003, SAEFL 2004, Skumatz & Freeman 2006, Sterner & Bartelings 1999. The factors shaded grey in Table 1 have a direct influence on sorting activities, while the remaining factors have indirect effects on the output.…”

“…Stratification can be based on various factors, depending on the aim of the study (Berg 1993, Burnley et al 2007, Emery et al 2004, Dahlén et al 2007, European Commission 2004, Noehammer & Byer 1997, Parfitt & Flowerdew 1997, Petersen 2004, RVF, 2005: Investigations of the waste flow can be stratified, i.e.…”

On the Prevention of Avoidable Food Waste from Domestic Households

“…one week of an average salary, we note that the typical daily cost of food waste per household is £1.32, i.e., substantially less than the price of a coffee at a UK high street outlet. Although financial aspects comprise one element of recycling scheme design [38], intrinsic, personal beliefs are broadly considered to motivate participation in household waste recycling [29,39]. The potential for financial and/or altruistic factors to stimulate or motivate behaviours aligned with householders' waste management appears not to be manifest in relation to food waste prevention behaviour on the basis of this study.…”

Management Models of Municipal Solid Waste: A Review Focusing on Socio Economic Factors

“…When the level of participation as well as the overall waste segregation individuals in a community make at the source was considered there has been determination of a positive correlation (Noehammer and Byer, 1997). Apart from this positive relationship has also been identified when the frequency of collection (Singh et al, 2011), Apart from this a link has been identification between consumer participation as well as economic incentives (Thanh et al, 2010Maldanado 2006Noehammer and Byer, 1997) provided and the time of collection of garbage (Folz, 1991). The degree of waste management has also been identified to have a direct link with the level of social pressure which is presented in the community (Barr et al, 2003).…”