The Effects of Bin Proximity and Visual Prompts on Recycling in a University Building

Abstract

Institutions such as universities are responsible for a significant amount of recyclable material entering landfills. This problem could be addressed in part by increasing the percentage of waste recycled by consumers on campuses. Building on previous research, we evaluated the effects of bin proximity and visual prompts on rates of recycling within a university building. The total weight of recyclable materials (aluminum, plastic, and paper) placed into the building's garbage and recycling bins was measured each day, and a reversal design was employed in which the environmental arrangement of the recycling bins was systematically manipulated. Both interventions produced a decrease in the amount of recyclable material being thrown in the trash cans, with visual prompts plus bin proximity being slightly more effective than bin proximity alone. However, neither intervention produced large increases in recycling. Interpretations of these findings and suggestions for future researchers are discussed.

Evaluating increased effort for item disposal to improve recycling at a university

“…These results are consistent with previous research showing that positioning recycling bins near trashcans increases recycling (Austin et al, ; Brothers et al, ; Miller et al, ; O'Connor et al, ). A component analysis of this intervention package was not conducted; therefore, the extent to which prompts (signs) influenced recycling is unknown.…”

“…Other approaches have involved low-cost strategies to increase recycling on college campuses, such as raffles and contests (e.g., Witmer & Geller, 1976), prompts, and relocating recycling bins to more convenient locations (Austin, Hatfield, Grindle, & Bailey, 1993;Brothers, Krantz, & McClannahan, 1994;Miller, Meindl, & Caradine, 2016;O'Connor, Lerman, Fritz, & Hodde, 2010). Austin et al (1993) examined an intervention to increase paper recycling.…”

Recycling at home and work: An exploratory comparison

“…Berger, 1997;Vining & Ebreo, 1990), or motivations (e.g. Hage, Söderholm & Berglund, 2009;Hornik et al, 1995;Miliute-Plepiene, Hage, Plepys & Reipas, 2016) of the recycler or non-recycler; assessing the success of different elements of scheme design, such as convenience (Everett & Peirce, 1993;Miller, Meindl & Caradine, 2016), information (Baxter & Gram-Hanssen, 2016;Willman, 2015) and feedback (Lingard, Gilbert & Graham, 2001;Schultz, 1999). The sub-set of the recycling literature that focuses on workplace recycling can be seen to be very much within these same traditions.…”

Análise Do Comportamento E Sustentabilidade: Revisão Dos Artigos Publicados No Behavior and Social Issues De 2005 a 2016

“…Os quatro artigos empíricos (Camargo & Haydu, 2016;Frazer & Leslie, 2014;Leeming, Hanses, Alavosius, & Reimer, 2013;Miller, Meindl, & Caradine, 2016) variam em relação ao número e aos tipos de variáveis manipuladas. Frazer e Leslie verificam os efeitos de três combinações de metas e feedbacks sobre o comportamento de consumir energia elétrica ao longo de 10 meses de intervenção.…”

“…Os autores discutiram como as combinações entre o comprometimento público e o feedback podem influenciar o consumo, chamando atenção para o fato de que tais combinações podem ter efeitos divergentes, a depender do padrão de consumo e do período de implementação da intervenção. Miller et al (2016) investigaram os efeitos da proximidade de lixeiras de material reciclável e de prompts visuais sobre o comportamento de reciclar. A proximidade das lixeiras, com ou sem prompt, aumentou sutilmente o comportamento de reciclagem.…”