Journal of Environmental Planning and Management ...

14 downloads 0 Views 345KB Size Report
and special recycling bags to one group, then they had a higher recycling rate ..... access. This suggests that it may be having the green bag in the house which.
This article was downloaded by: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] On: 14 December 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 906484692] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713429786

Recycling Policy in Areas of Low Income and Multi-storey Housing RONALD W. MCQUAID; ANGUS R. MURDOCH

To cite this Article MCQUAID, RONALD W. and MURDOCH, ANGUS R.(1996) 'Recycling Policy in Areas of Low Income

and Multi-storey Housing', Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 39: 4, 545 — 562 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09640569612372 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640569612372

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journa l of Env ironm ental Plann ing and M ana gem ent, 39(4), 545± 562, 1996

R ecycling Polic y in A rea s of Low Incom e and M ulti-storey H ousing

RO N A LD W . M C Q U AID * & A N GU S R. M U RD O C H ²

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

*D epa rtm ent of E cono m ics, N ap ier U niversity , 1 0 Co linton R oa d , Ed inburg h EH 10 5 D T, U K

=Env iro nm enta l C o nsum er Serv ices D ep artm ent, C ity o f Ed inburg h Co uncil, Ed inburg h EH 1 3 Y J, U K (R eceiv ed Sep tem ber 19 9 5 ; re vised June 1 99 6 )

A BSTRA CT Th e paper considers the participation of households in recycling program m es in areas of m ulti-storey, low incom e housing w hich are often considered un attractive for such program m es.A m odel of the m aterial recycled is presented together w ith a review of socio-econom ic, housing, technological, policy and other factors in¯ uencing household recycling. This is follow ed by a case stud y of tw o areas in the city of Ed inburgh. R esults sug gest th at the level of recycling is in¯ uenced by collection m ethod s, for all m aterials except glass, w ith half of the recyclers starting as a result of the introduction of kerbside collection. H ousing characteristics (such as the storey-level in buildings w ithout lifts), household size and access to cars all in¯ uenced recycling participation rates. H ousing tenure w as no t found to be signi® cant. This suggests that w ell designed kerbside collection program m escan have a signi® cant im pact in areas w ith high levels of m ulti-storey d w ellings, low incom e and public housing. Introd uction Im proving the level of recycling domestic w aste has becom e a major policy challenge as a number of countries have set new targets, such as the 25% target levels in the UK and the United States (Environ men tal Protection Agenc y (EPA ), 1989; D epartm en t of the En viron men t, 1990). Sign i® cant increases in household recyclin g levels req uire: clarifying the resp onsibilities of all levels of governmen t, product manufacturers and w aste disposers (Macdonald & Vopni, 1994); improving the m arket for secondary materials (for ins tance through market support schemes and relative charg es for virgin materials and w aste collectionÐ D epartm en t of Environm en t, 1992a); and increasin g both househ old participation rates and the amount of material recycled by each househ old. Such increases in househ old recyclin g levels w ill be in¯ uen ced by the phy sical and socio-econom ic characteristics of the local area. Collection of recycled material, especially kerb sid e collection, is particularly expen sive and dif® cult to organize in old cities w ith m any `¯ ats’ and narrow streets (Cairncross, 1991; Yuhas & H yde, 1991), and am ong the 22.8% of the U K population resid ent in local authority housing (Forshaw et al., 1990; C lyd e, 1994). Local authority tenants are often concentrated in such inner city areas or in larg e peripheral estates on the edge of cities. M ost studies have, how ever, concentrated upon 0964-0568/96/040545-18 $6.00 Ó

1996 Un iversity of Newcastle upon T yn e

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

546

R. W . M cQ uaid & A . R . M urdoch

recyclin g programmes coverin g prim arily sin gle househ old build ings (Katzev et al., 1993) and w here car ow nersh ip is high. Yet in order to achieve the national recyclin g targets mention ed above, it is necess ary to get high levels of participation from households in areas w ith multi-storey, low income housing and high levels of local authority housin g. This paper analyses the participation of househ olds in kerbside recyclin g programmes in such areas and the in¯ uen ce of tenure and housin g characteristics. H en ce, in developing appropriate policies to increase household recyclin g levels a range of factors in¯ uencin g househ old behaviour must be consid ered . These in clude: the socio-econom ic, housing and dem ographic characteristics of potential participants to a recycling program me; the values of the potential participants and social press ure; and the characteristic s of recycling policies including promotional policies, ® nancial incentives and the collection method. A s recycling often inv olves consid erab le effort from participants, often w ith little or no person al, ® nancial, social or (given the small impact of any individual’s effort) env iron mental gain, then a range of socio-econom ic and psych ological persp ectives are need ed to understa nd the likely effect of recycling program mes. Each of these is consid ered below . The nex t section presents a m odel of household recycling and consid ers factors that in¯ uence participation in recycling programmes. This is follow ed by a case study of tw o areas w here hypotheses concern ing the participation rates of househ olds in a recycling program me are analysed in term s of certain factors important in such housin g areas, particularly the collection m ethod, housing tenure, building characteristic s, household size and car ow nership. Th e ® nal section presen ts the conclusion s.

Fa ctors In¯ uencing H ousehold Participation in R ecyc ling Prog ram m es A num ber of cross-disciplin ary and interrela ted factors need to be consid ered 1 w hen analysin g the level of recycling of househ old w aste. W hether househ olds participate in recycling program mes, and the degree of their participation, w ill depend upon the characteristics of the househ olds them selv es (i.e. socioeconomic and dem ographic factors, the values and beliefs of the m em bers of the househ old), and the ability to participate in and the ease of recycling (i.e. the characteris tics of the recycling policy or programme). The am ount recycled w ill also depen d upon the technology and effectiveness of the w aste and recyclin g collection and processin g, and the w ider policy and economic± technological env iron ments w ithin w hich the household members live (including the w ider characteris tics of goods consum ed and the effects of technological changes). Based upon these factors, a m odel of the amount of material recycled by househ olds in an area can be developed. Each component of this w ill be affected by the actions of the househ olds, technological change and public policy. The amount of w aste material recycled by households in the area is:

O O h

R ij(t) 5

i5

1 j5

w

Q ij(t)F j (t)Pij (t) 1

w here: R ij(t) is the amount of recycled material collected from all household s in period t, w here i represen ts each household (i 5 1 ¼ h) and j each category of material in the unsorted househ old w aste (j 5 1 ¼ w ).

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

Recycling in A reas of Lo w Incom e and M ulti-storey H ousing

547

Q ij(t) is the total w aste that a househ old gen erates for disposal in time period t. This w ill be based prim arily upon their consumer demand and so be a function of income, househ old size and structure, other socioeconomic factors, decisions on replacement of goods , w ider govern ment policies, technological changes, etc. F j (t) is the fraction of w aste that can potentially be domestically separated for recycling . This w ill largely depend upon product design , collection policies (for in stance, some materials may not be collected) and technology for separating and recycling materials. P ij(t) is the propensity of a househ old to recycle, as m easured by the proportion of a given m aterial available for recyclin g that is recycled. This re¯ ects the level of househ old participationÐ in theory from zero to 100% Ð and w ill be a function of: socio-economic, dem ographic and housing characteristics; values, beliefs and social netw orks; the characteristics of recyclin g policies such as those affecting the ease of recycling, etc.; and the category of material recycled. The rest of this section consid ers resea rch upon factors likely to affect P ij(t), the propens ity of household s to recycle (i.e. household characteristics, household 2 beliefs etc., and policy characteristics). It then brie¯ y consid ers the w ider issues of the changin g technolog ical and public policy context affecting particularly Q ij(t) and F j(t). So cio-econom ic, D em ographic and H ousing C haracteristics There is m ixed evid en ce on the in¯ uen ce of socio-economic factors upon recyclin g beh aviour. A UK study of Leed s found that recyclers w ere more lik ely to be older, from higher socio-econom ic groups, w hite, m arried , and to ow n their ow n homes (Forsh aw et al., 1990). N on-recyclers w ere m ore likely to be und er 24 years old, from low er socio-economic groups, sin gle, and tw ice as lik ely to live in council houses or ¯ ats. They also found that most people w ould be w illin g to participate if recyclin g w as conven ien t. H ow ever, sometim es con¯ icting evidence, prim arily from the US, has indicated only w eak lin ks betw een socio-econom ic or dem ographic variables and recyclin g behaviour. Vin ing & Ebreo (1990a, 1990b) argued that recyclers do not differ from non-recyclers in term s of gen der, household size, occupation or educational level. O skamp et al. (1991) also found no demographic variables w hich sig ni® cantly pred icted participation in recycling , and M cGuire (1984) found no relationsh ip betw een socio-econom ic levels and recyclin g behaviour (although this w as based on `brin g to’ recycling centres and not kerbsid e collection). H ow ever, Everett & Peirce (1992) and Schnaiberg (1980) found positive relations hips w ith greater recyclin g success in high income areas. W ealthier households gen erate m ore m aterial to be recycled and other factors, such as the opportunity cost of time, in¯ uen ce the level of recycling for differen t materials (Saltzm an et al., 1993). Also, it may be im portant to control for housin g type, as storage and ease of collection from the household er pers pective m ay be greater in sin gle dw ellin g units, and this may be correlated w ith socio-economic factors. A fter controlling for concern for the en vironm en t, age, education, income and job pres tige, D erksen & G artrell (1993) still found that m ulti-family dw elling s recycled few er

548

R. W . M cQ uaid & A . R . M urdoch

item s than sing le family ones. This key policy issue of w hether recycling effort sh ould be concentrated on low rise housin g rather than high multi-storey housing, is consid ered in the case-study below .

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

V alues, Beliefs and So cial N etw orks The next group of factors that in¯ uen ce recycling beh aviour are the values, beliefs and attitudes of people. The lin k betw een values and beh aviour is not sim ple, but inv olves a number of com plex lin ks w ith attitudes/beliefs w hich can then lead to chang es in behaviour (McCarty & Shrum , 1993; Schoemaker, 1993). W hile values may alter attitudes, they do not necessarily lead to changes in recyclin g beh aviour (Golden har & C onnell, 1993). H opper & N iels en (1991) and Vinin g et al. (1992) found that an altruistic m otive for recycling (e.g. conserving res ources) w ere extrem ely im portant, and w as the only factor that w as sim ilar across the four communities they studied . Similarly, O skamp et al. (1991) found that en vironm en tal concern did not necessarily lead to recycling behaviour as other factors, such as kn ow led ge, w ere important. Social netw orks also have an important part to play in improving the rates of recyclin g. Burn (1991) found that block leaders provid ed inform ation and their block of streets im proved the recycling rates. The study also found that w here the block leader presen ted a persuasive com munication advocating recyclin g and special recycling bags to one group, then they had a higher recycling rate than a second group w here bags and communications w ere left at the door. Both groups had a sign i® cantly high er rate than a control group w here there w as no treatmen t. Everett & Peirce (1992) also found that comm unity structures such as block leaders had a positive im pact upon recycling , particularly w here the res idents kn ow each other and w here the block leader know s the block residents. Further, the role of im itation is im portant w ith the lik elihood of recyclin g beh aviour bein g positively correlated w ith w hether the neig hb ours also recycled (Oskamp et al., 1991). Belief s and beh aviour may also be lin ked to socioeconomic characteristics w ith studies ® nding w omen (Schann & H olzer, 1990), the young , the w ell educated, and urban resid ents all having greater en vironmen tal concern (Buttel & Flin n, 1978). In multi-storey dw elling s w ith high res ident turnov er there may be low levels of social netw orks w hich promote recyclin g, even if values and beliefs support recycling .

C haracteristics of R ecycling Policies In addition to the characteristics and m otivations of the potential recyclers, the characteris tics of the recyclin g policies have a sign i® cant impact upon the level of participation. Particular characteristics of policies include organization, promotion, incen tives and collection. First, concernin g organization, Folz & H azlett (1991) argued that the success of recycling programm es (in term s of participation rates and am ounts of w aste diverted ) depen ds upon the policies chosen and how they are selected and im plem en ted rather than upon the characteristics of the com munity. They found that policies organized as a decentralized consultative process emphasizing citizen participation and involvin g outreach efforts by local of® cials to reside nts, w hich w ere coupled w ith educational and publicity campaigns prepared w ith the assistance of local education person nel, env iron mental

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

Recycling in A reas of Lo w Incom e and M ulti-storey H ousing

549

organizations and other citizen groups, w ere typical of successful recyclin g programmes. Second, De Young (1989) argued that promotional policies are im portant in increasing the level of recyclin g as recyclers and non-recyclers w ere sim ilar in their pro-recycling attitudes, but non -recyclers lacked inform ation on how to recycle. Vin ing & Ebreo (1990b) similarly found a correlation betw een kn ow ledge about local recyclin g and recyclin g beh aviour, and recyclers w ere more aw are of the various means of recycling differen t materials than w ere nonrecyclers. Osk am p et al. (1991) also sugg est that it is kn ow led ge of the speci® c local recyclin g opportunities that increases the level of recycling . The use of persuasive appeals by promoters of recycling can also increase the participation rates in recyclin g program mes (H opper & N ielsen , 1991). H ow ever, Ball & Law son (1990) argue that publicity campaign s to promote glass recycling in Scotland have had little impact. They sugg est that campaign s sh ould be better targeted , especially at younger, low er socio-economic groups w hich had low participation rates. Such groups are often `over-represente d’ in m any multistorey, social housing areas. Third , an im portant componen t of m arket based solutions to recycling is often to provide incentives to household recyclers. It is comm on in many countries to provid e ® nancial incentives for the return of disposable packagin g such as drink s containers, although less comm on to provide ® nancial incen tives to gen eral househ old w aste. Various types of ® nancial, or quasi-® nancial, incentives have been used to promote recycling, rang ing from m oney to raf¯ es, contests and other prizes (for example: Geller et al., 1982; Jacobs & Bailey, 1983; D e Young , 1984). H ow ever, other resea rch sugg ests that, w hen incentives are rem oved, then the recycling beh aviour is lik ely to disappear (Couch et al., 1978; Luyben & Bailey, 1979). Other ® nancial incentives have been proposed, such as w eig ht or volume-based rubbish disposal rates, including pre-b ag pricin g for charging househ olds, although these have not been w idely used (Everett & 3 Peirce, 1992). One major market incentive is to replace a ¯ at fee for disposal of household w aste w ith quantity-based pricin g system s w here the amount paid by a household depen ds on the amount of w aste generated. H ong et al. (1993) found that a pricin g sy stem for w aste collection serv ices did increase househ old recyclin g effort. H ow ever, in multi-unit dw ellin gs w hich often use common means of househ old w aste collection , this precludes a quantity-b ased pricin g sys tem (Shumatz, 1990). Folz & H azlett (1991) also found that collection and tipping fees, togeth er w ith the ability to issue sanctions or w arn ing s for improper separation, w ere im portant for the success of mandatory (rather than voluntary) recyclin g program mes. Fourth , the actual means of collecting the recycled material, and people’s perception of it are also im portant. The perception of the inconvenien ce of recyclin g is an important motivation for those not recycling (Turner, 1981; Vinin g et al., 1992) although people are also motivated by more than convenien ce (Vin ing & Ebreo, 1990b, 1992). Kerbside collection is m uch m ore effective in increasing the amount of recycled material collected than `brin g’ sy stem s w ith the former reaching 30% of househ old w aste recycled and the latter potentially only 20% (Bardos et al., 1990). H ow ever, it is m uch more expen sive w ith estim ates for the Department of Environ ment (Department of Environm en t, 1992a) suggestin g UK kerb sid e average gros s collection costs (w ithout com posta-

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

550

R. W . M cQ uaid & A . R . M urdoch

bles) of £196± 252 per tonne com pared to £25± 75 for `bring ’ sys tems. N et costs after sales revenu es and disp osal savin gs w ere £133± 189 and minus £20± 25 res pectively. Differen t collection method s produce different results (Everett et al., 1991). Res chovsky & Stone (1994) found that kerbsid e collection had the greatest impact upon recyclin g beh aviour w hen compared to quantity-based `trash -tag’ sy stem s used in isolation, ex cept for food/garden w aste for com posting. Kerbsid e collection, together w ith mand atory recycling or quantity-based recycling, sign i® cantly increased the probability of household recycling . C omingled recycling , w here w aste for recycling did not have to be sorted by the household , is one of the collection method s requiring least effort by the household and w as found to be an effective w ay of increasin g the diversion of w aste from land® ll sites (Gamba & O skamp, 1994). M uch of the m aterial may be contaminated and it m ay be dif® cult to sort, although m aterial may be used for refuse deriv ed fuel (Barton, 1985) although this has been criticized because of em iss ions and the disposal of the ash. Surrid ge (1992) sugg ested that w heeled bins had the highest participation rates, partly because the househ older has less opportunity to `opt out’ of recyclin g as the norm al bin w as not able to take the full volume to refuse. Sw ing box system s, w here w aste is divid ed into different types of material, have been popular in N orth A merica (Payn e-C ook & Associates Inc, 1990) and some UK cities (Shef® eld Kerbsid e C ollection Project (SKC P), 1991). H ow ever, neith er of these schemes is particularly suited to high -rise housing , due to the storage space required , and dif® culty of setting out and collecting containers. Fin ally, it is w orth noting that w hile participation may increase w ith ease of recycling , the quality of recovered material is important (Barton, 1990) and the margina l costs of this m ay outw eigh any additional ben e® ts (Judge and Becker, 1993). H en ce, the ease of recyclin g, the type of container, the frequen cy of collection, the day of collection (w hether the collection of recycled material is on the sam e day as the ordinary w aste), the number and types of materials collected, the presenc e of `bin’ recyclin g points, and w hether the collection is mand atory, all play a role in the rate of recycling. M ulti-storey blocks can pose particular dif® culties for collection in term s of long distances to take material to kerbsid e collection points, ming lin g of differen t types of w aste (especially if there are central disposal sy stem s, such as chutes) and storage capacity w ithin the dw elling s or building. H en ce collection policies and method s m ay be more lim ited and expected recycling potential low er than in other areas. T he Public Policy and Te chnological C hange C on text O ver time, the changin g com position of goods consum ed in the househ old w ill also in¯ uence recyclin g beh aviour. Th ese are in¯ uen ced by factors in the w ider society, such as consum er tastes or demand, the m anufacturer or supplier of the goods, technology or w ider public policies. For exam ple, the operation of retailers or other suppliers to the household w ill affect the types and levels of w aste gen erated in the household, and hen ce potential recycling beh aviour. For ins tance, the shops used by the househ old may only sell goods in certain packaging (e.g. milk in plastic containers), w hich may or m ay not be easily recyclable depend in g upon w hether plastics are collected locally for recycling. H ence w hen consid erin g recyclin g beh aviour there is a need to consid er the

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

Recycling in A reas of Lo w Incom e and M ulti-storey H ousing

551

macro socio-economic structure rather than just aggrega ting the individ ual res ponses to recycling (Derk sen & Gartrell, 1993). Gen erally , technological chang es w ill in¯ uen ce household recycling beh aviour in a num ber of w ays . Product chang es, such as goods w ith longer operational lives (or conversely rapid redu ndancy) w ill in¯ uence the amount of w aste generated. Packagin g improvem en ts (such as the red uction in the w eigh t of m etal food cans over time) w ill red uce the am ount or toxicity of w aste material in household s, although other chang es (such as the replacemen t of doorstep milk delivery and return of used milk bottles, w ith plastic store bought containers) may have the revers e effect. Improvem en ts in recyclin g techn iques and technology can m ake it easier for househ olds, and the collection agenc ies, to sort recycled material. For example, automatic separation technology sortin g differen t types of plastic means that househ olds no long er need to store them separately or that they are only used as refuse deriv ed fuel. The maximum techn ical recovery from household w aste has been estim ated as up to 80% , includin g putrescibles (Young, 1991). For example, regu lations or policies on iss ues such as those on packaging of goods or the ability of consumers to place outer packaging in containers w ithin shops (such as the Germ an `Green Point’ system ), or return used goods to the supplier, w ill affect the am ount of potential recyclable material in the househ old (Comm iss ion of the European C omm unities, 1992). M acdonald & Vopni (1994) identify a num ber of sign i® cant policy barriers to larg e-scale diversion of municipal solid w aste (red uction, re-use, recycling and recovery ) in N orth America and Europe, including adm inistrative issues such as mechanism s for effective liaison amongs t all levels of governmen t and coordination betw een red uction and re-use programmes (usually set by high er levels of govern ment, e.g. returnable bottles) and recycling and disposal programm es (usually the resp onsibility of local govern ment). Gandy (1993) argues that even local recycling policies should be considered w ithin the context of w ider policies such as the structure and organization of local govern men t, the U K govern ment’ s demunicipalization of recycling and w aste managem en t sin ce the 1970s, and pressu re to cut w aste m anagem en t costs w hile subject to public demand for high er env iron mental stand ard s. Also he argues that there is a grow in g em phasis upon en ergy rather than m aterials recovery w ithin the hierarchy of recycling . Policies on fees for the use of land® ll sites w ill in¯ uence the attractiveness of improving recycling incentives and collections discussed above. M acdonald & Vopni (1994) also identify the broader need for: incen tives for separation of reusable and recyclable m aterials; incentives for the substitution of recyclables for virgin inputs (including programmes for minim um recycled content in new products); and measures to resolve political con¯ ict over w ho bears the cost of w aste diversion and local opposition to the location of centralized material recovery facilities. H ence a large range of national and supra-national policies w ill directly in ¯ uen ce local recycling opportunity and options. In sum mary , the various factors set out in the model w ill affect recyclin g levels, but in most cases the potential recyclin g levels from household s in multi-storey housin g w ould be ex pected to be less than from single storey or `low ris e’ housin g. This raises the fundam en tal policy question of w hether recyclin g effort sh ould therefore be relatively focused aw ay from multi-storey housing areas.

552

R. W . M cQ uaid & A . R . M urdoch

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

T he C ase Study This case study seeks to consider factors in¯ uencing the propensity of households to recycle that are particularly important for housin g areas w ith multistorey dw ellin gs and high sh ares of local authority housing. In particular it seek s to inv estigate the in¯ uen ce of motives, the collection method, and the socioeconomic and housing factors of tenure, build in g characteris tics, household size and car ow nership on the level of participation in areas of multi-storey housing. The C ity of Edinb urgh has a population of 419 000, of w hich 62% live in multi-dw ellin g housing units. The local district council has a long history of inv olvem en t in recycling, and since 1988 it has increased the rang e of m aterials collected and w idened the number of sites at w hich m aterials can be brought (Edinburg h District C ouncil, 1993). By 1994 approximately 8% of the city’ s refuse stream w as bein g diverted for recycling (M urdoch, 1994) w hich is better than the national average of around 5% (D epartm en t of Environ ment, 1992b), but w ell sh ort of the 25% future target set by the Govern men t. The survey in this report concern s a kerbsid e collection recycling program me in tw o areas of the city. The ® rst area (part of Leith) consisted of three streets of four-storey tenem en t blocks (blocks of ¯ ats) near the harbour area of the city, com prising 574 household s. The second area (part of W ester H ailes) w as made up of three 12-storey blocks com prising 408 househ olds. W ester H ailes had particular social problem s such as high unem ploym en t and low incomes, and w as desig nated as an Urb an Programm e area of m ultiple deprivation. It is a periph eral estate on the edge of the city, and largely made up of council houses built in the 1960s and 1970s. Particularly in Leith , there w as little space for storage of material for recycling, and in both areas there w ere low levels of car ow nersh ip. Before the program me w as in troduced all material for recycling had to be brought to collection centres such as bottlebank s. The survey w as carried out nine months after the start of the new w eek ly recycling collection pro4 gramm e. The survey w as carried out in 1994 w ith a question naire delivered to each househ old and return ed by post or direc tly to local of® ces. Some 29% of Leith househ olds and 11% of W ester H ailes househ olds resp onded (164 in Leith and 41 in W ester H ailes). Of these, 92% w ere participants in the recycling scheme and 8% w ere not participants (including 1% w ho w ere not participants but still used `bring ’ recycling facilities and 0.5% `spoilt’ return s). Based upon the recyclin g rate reported in the question naire and the actual collection of material in the areas, it w as estim ated that an average of 39% of household s in the area recycled , and that the survey resp onse w as approximately tw o-third s (betw een 56± 78% ) of all recyclers (Murd och, 1994). In W ester H ailes it w as estim ated that 17% of all households recycled and that approxim ately half (betw een 35± 67% ) of recyclers participated in the survey. H ence there is a consid erab le differen ce in 5 househ old recycling levels betw een the tw o areas. The main m otivations for participation in the recycling programme w ere for altruistic reasons, i.e. ª because recycling w as importantº (65% in both areas). O ther reasons w ere because ª it w as m ore conven ien tº (31% ), and ª because I w as asked toº (14% ), although the programm e w as not mandatory. The main reasons cited for non -participation w ere ª lack of spaceº cited by 58% of non-participants in Leith but none in W ester H ailes . This indicates that the phy sical characteris tics of the housing stock are extrem ely important although this has been largely

Recycling in A reas of Lo w Incom e and M ulti-storey H ousing

553

ign ored in the literature. Other reasons given non -participation w ere ª alw ays forgetº or ª too dif® cultº (each cited by 25% overall), and ª nothing to recycleº or ª serv ice problem s w ith the recyclin g program meº (each 13% overall, but prim arily on the W ester H ailes 12-storey build ings). A num ber of hypotheses are now tested to consid er the effects of certain factors that are likely to be important in housin g areas such as these. These are the effect of the collection method, housing tenure, build ing heigh t, the household size (especially as such areas have increasin g concentrations of small househ olds) and access to cars (given the low rate of car ow nersh ip).

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

The Effect of C ollection Po licy The ® rst hy pothesis is that kerbsid e collection w ould increase the level of participation in recyclin g. The survey found that 56% of the recyclers (55% in Leith and 62% in W ester H ailes ) had not been recycling before the programme, so the programm e more than doubled participation rates in both areas. This stron gly supports the view that the pres en ce of a kerbsid e recycling program me increases recyclin g rates in areas, although this m ust be quali® ed for one material (glass) as is discussed below . The percen tage recyclin g different materials varied quite consid erably. Of those recyclin g, 99.3% recycled paper (98.4% in Leith and 100% in W ester H ailes), 84.3% glass (83.6% and 91.9% resp ectively ), 81.2% plastics, 82.2% cans , but only 41.4% for textiles (38.8% and 54.1% resp ectively ). N early a third (32.5% ) of recyclers collected all of these materials (30.1% and 40.5% resp ectively ). The types of materials recycled also sh ow ed a relative change due to the introd uction of the kerbsid e collection. N early tw ice as many people w ere now recyclin g textiles (54% compared to less than 29% before the programme), plastics 81% com pared to 15% , cans 82% com pared to 43% , paper 99% compared to 83% , although for glass there w as no sign i® cant change (rem aining at 84% ). This may account for Ball & M athew s’ (1988) ® nding that municipal glass `bring ’ collection sy stem s w ere economically viable. The results indicate that curren t glass recycling programmes usin g bottle banks are as effective as kerbsid e recycling for that material but not for other materials. This m ay be due to the characteristics of material (e.g. easy and clean storage for bottles), or w idespread kn ow led ge that materials can be recycled at the bottle banks . The percen tage of people still using bottle banks fell from 98% before the kerbsid e collection programm e to 8% . There w as only a small fall in those using charity sh ops, from 25% to 18%, re¯ ecting the fact that many materials given to charity sh ops are for re-use rather than reprocessing (e.g. used clothes). N ot surprisin gly, during the programm e 83% recyclers (84.2% and 81.1% resp ectively) put out less w aste, w hile 11% stated that the programme had made no differen ce and the rem aind er saying that they w ere not sure. H en ce, both the percentage of household s and the amount recycled per househ old rose w ith the kerbsid e collection, except for glass. This sugg ests that differences betw een glass and other m aterials need to be more fully consid ered in policies and research. Tenu re Based upon earlier observ ations of low recycling levels in areas of council

554

R. W . M cQ uaid & A . R . M urdoch

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

Ta ble 1. Participation in recycling programm e by tenure of resp onden ts (% ) Pa rticipants

W h ole area

L eith O w n er Private tenant C ouncil tenant H ousing association O ther

68.4 15.8 8.6 6.6 0

66.7 15.4 13.1 5.1 0.3

W ester H a iles O w n er Private tenant C ouncil tenant H ousing association O ther

5.4 0 94.6 0 0

4.6 1.1 92.6 1.1 0

N o te : N 5 151 (L eith), 37 (W ester H ailes). S ou rce s: Q uestionn aire/Cen sus of Pop ulation.

housing, the second hypothesis is that tenure in¯ uen ces recyclin g beh aviour, speci® cally that council tenants are les s likely to participate in recycling programm es than others. The res ults are show n in Table 1. In order to determ ine the effect of certain im portant socio-economic and housing characteristics upon recyclin g beh aviour, chi-sq uared tests w ere carried out based upon people w ho participated in the recycling trial compared to the population of the area as a w hole (usin g 1991 C en sus of Population data for the equivalen t sm all output areas). C onsiderin g the in¯ uence of factors for each area separately allow ed variables such as the characteristics of both the normal w aste and the recyclin g material collections, accessib ility to `brin g’ recycling collection points, housing types, the physical en vironm en tal and socio-economic characteristics of the area, 6 and the promotion of the recycling programm e, to be controlled for. In Leith there appeared to be less w illin gn ess on the part of council tenants to participate, but a chi-squared statistic of 3.08 (w ith 3 degrees of freed om) w as not sig ni® cant even at the 10% level. H ouseh olds in W ester H ailes w ere mostly council tenants, but there appeared to be no sign i® cant differen ce betw een tenants and ow ner-occupiers in recycling behaviour. People of all types of housing tenure w ill apparen tly participate to a sim ilar degree given the opportunity, although furth er res earch w ould be useful.

Building H eight Little resea rch has been carried out on the importance of build ing heigh t to recyclin g behaviour. The third hy pothesis considered the in¯ uence of building heigh t upon recycling beh aviour, speci® cally that people livin g on a high er ¯ oor in a build ing migh t be less likely to participate in recycling due to the greater effort in bring ing extra bags of recycled material. H ow ever, as the ¯ ats in W ester H ailes have lifts, ¯ oor level is likely to m ake less differen ce there than in Leith.

Recycling in A reas of Lo w Incom e and M ulti-storey H ousing

555

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

Ta ble 2. Participation in recycling program me by ¯ oor level (%) Pa rticipan ts

W h ole area

Leith Ground First and secon d Th ird an d fou rth

25.0 54.6 20.4

22.8 54.2 23.1

W este r H a iles First Secon d Th ird Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eigh th N inth Ten th Eleven th Tw elfth

13.5 2.7 0 8.1 8.1 5.4 2.7 18.9 16.2 2.7 5.4 16.2

8.8 8.8 5.9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 5.9 8.8 8.8 8.8

So urce s: See T able 1 and C ity H ousing D epartmen t.

The C ens us can provide data on ¯ oor levels for Leith (Table 2). Figu res for W ester H ailes w ere obtained from the council’ s housing departm en t, and refer to the high rise apartm en t blocks exclusively. A ll ¯ oors are iden tical, except ¯ oors three and nine. In Leith , there w as an apparently w eak inverse correlation betw een recyclin g beh aviour and building level, w ith househ olds on the third ¯ oor bein g sligh tly less w ell represente d among recyclin g participants than those on the ground ¯ oor. H ow ever, chi-squared analysis sh ow ed this not to be sign i® cant at the 10% level (the chi-squared w as 0.73). In W ester H ailes, there is no groun d ¯ oor, but there is access to a lift for m ost ¯ oors. O ne point to note, how ever, is that the top ¯ oor is not served by the liftÐ these resid en ts w ould have to w alk dow n to the eleventh ¯ oor to catch it. Surprisin gly then , the tw elfth ¯ oor had the second highest percen tage of recyclers . In W ester H ailes the chi-squared w as also not sign i® cant at the 10% level (2.17). O verall then, the survey found no evidence of a relationsh ip betw een ¯ oor level and w illing ness to participate.

H ousehold Size There w as no correlation betw een household size and participation in the recyclin g program me in eith er area (Table 3). In Leith, tw o person househ olds appeared to be over-represente d among recyclers w hile all other househ old sizes w ere und er-rep resen ted. This evid ence that househ old size in¯ uences participation in recycling is statistically sign i® cant (w ith a chi-squared of 7.31, w hich is sig ni® cant at the 10% level although not at the 5% level). In W ester H ailes househ olds of three or more people w ere over-represen ted among recyclers, w hile one and tw o person household s w ere under-represen ted, yet the chi-

556

R. W . M cQ uaid & A . R . M urdoch

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

Ta ble 3. Participation in recycling program me by household size (%) Pa rticipants

W hole area

L eith 1 2 3 4 . 4

50.7 37.5 4.6 2.6 0

52.4 32.7 9.7 4.5 0.8

W ester H a iles 1 2 3 4 . 4

43.2 29.7 18.9 5.4 2.7

37.2 35.4 16.8 9.5 1.1

N o te : N 5 145 (Leith), 37 (W ester H ailes). S o urce s: Questionn aire/C en sus of Population.

squared ® gure (1.56) suggests no statistically signi® cant relationsh ip betw een househ old size and participation in this area. H ow ever, by comparin g household size w ith those househ olds w hich recycle the full range of m aterials, it is possib le to see an effect upon the range of materials recycled (Table 4). Th e tw o areas appear to give differing results. A s househ old size increases in Leith, so does the inciden ce of people recycling all materials. Th ere is no clear link in W ester H ailes. Therefore, it w ould appear that in Leith, as the am ount of refuse created increases, so does the w illin gn ess to recycle the full range of materials. In W ester H ailes , houses are believed to be more spacious, and if there is a space problem , any excess can be deposited in the refuse chute. This w ould mean that household size is less of an iss ue in W ester H ailes . It w as in teres ting to note from additional analysis of the survey that participating household s contained people of all age groups. Given that in the m ajority of cases (over 89% ) all resid en ts in a participating househ old w ere actively recycling , it is reasonable to assume that people of all age groups are recyclin g. There w as no strong link betw een age and recycling participation, but gen erally those und er 16 or over 55 w ere more likely to be `new ’ recyclers rather than also being recyclers before the programm e due to its conven ience.

Table 4. People recycling full range of materials by household size (%) H ouseh old size

Leith

W ester H ailes

1 2 3 4

27.2 33.3 42.9 100.0 Ð

43.8 36.4 28.6 50.0 100.0

.

4

So u rces: See T able 1.

Recycling in A reas of Lo w Incom e and M ulti-storey H ousing

557

Table 5. Participation in recyclin g program me by car access (%) Participants

W h ole area

N ew recyclers

Pr evious recy clers

L eith A ccess N o access

34.2 65.8

30.3 69.7

34.9 65.0

33.3 67.0

W ester H ailes A ccess N o access

29.7 70.3

19.2 80.8

29.2 70.8

35.7 64.3

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

S ou rces: See T able 1.

C ar A ccess In both areas, there are low levels of car ow nersh ip (or of reg ular access to a car), typical of many inn er city areas and council estates. Lack of access to a car w ould be ex pected to low er the ease of takin g material to `bring ’ recyclin g points, hence kerbsid e collection should have a greater impact in areas of low car access. According to the 1991 C en sus of Population, 70% of those in Leith and 81% in W ester H ailes w ere w ithout access to a car. The ® fth hypothesis is that those w ith car access are m ore likely to participate in recycling because previously they had easier access to `brin g’ facilities, and they are more likely to have higher incom es. In both areas there w as higher recycling participation among those people w ith access to a car (Table 5, columns 1 and 2). This relationsh ip is sign i® cant at the 10% level for W ester H ailes (the chi-squared w as 2.82) but not in Leith (chi-sq uared 1.12). Th is m ay be lin ked to the greater tim e (both to get out of the build ing and once outside the build ing) for resid en ts of the high multi-storey build ing s in W ester H ailes to reach `bring’ points. It w ould be reasonable to assume that car users w ould have been more lik ely than average to use the existing `brin g’ facilities in the tw o areas and so the proportion of those w ithout car access sh ould be larger among the new recyclers. H ow ever columns 3 and 4 of Table 5 show that, in Leith, the relative proportions of those w ith and those w ithout car access w as nearly the sam e among new and prev ious recyclersÐ the programme had sim ilar im pact upon each group. In W ester H ailes those w ithout car access m ade up a larg er share of new recyclers (71% ) than those w ith car access, w hen compared to previous recyclers (w here only 64% of prev ious recyclers had no car access). Thus in W ester H ailes the program me did in crease participation among those w ithout car access, as expected. From a policy persp ective it is im portant that around tw o-thirds of the new recyclers starting recyclin g as a result of the program me w ere w ithout access to a car. Overall, it appears that, contrary to general assumptions of resea rchers, the level of car ow nersh ip has not played a part in recycling activity in this area. The differen ces noted above appear quite small, and w ere not observed at all in Leith , w here new recyclers and previous recyclers exhibit sim ilar levels of car access. This suggests that it may be havin g the green bag in the house w hich encourages participation in recycling rather than any inconvenien ce attached to the `brin g’ sys tem.

558

R. W . M cQ uaid & A . R . M urdoch

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

C onclusions O verall, a number of different factors w ere found to in¯ uen ce the participation of households in the recycling programme. Further theoretical and em pirical developmen ts are need ed to more fully understand the factors beh ind household recyclin g levels and their lin ks to w ider socio-economic issues. The ® rst conclusion concern s collection methods and is that the introd uction of a kerb side collection programme sign i® cantly increased the level of recyclin g by househ olds in term s of both the percentage of househ olds participating and the amount that they recycled. O ver half the recyclers had started as a res ult of the new programm e. This has important policy im plications for raisin g recyclin g rates in areas of m ulti-storey dw ellin gs com pared to the reliance upon `brin g’ points for recycling , although cost factors may be important in the introd uction of any policy. Interesting ly it w as found that there w as an exception in the case of the material glass , w here `brin g’ points w ere as effective as kerb sid e collection. The second conclusion is that recycling programmes can be successful in multi-storey dw elling s in low income, public housing dominated areas. This question s assumptions that recyclin g schemes sh ould be prim arily restric ted to low ris e, high er incom e areas. W hile the m ixed tenure, low er level, multi-storey housing in Leith did have a high er overall rate of recycling than the pred om inantly public housin g, 12-storey housing area of W est H ailes, no statistically sign i® cant evidence w as found that housin g tenure in¯ uen ced participation in the recycling programm e, although council tenants w ere under-represen ted among recyclers. This sugg ests that kerb sid e recycling programm es have consid erable potential amongs t all parts of a city. Th ere w as some eviden ce of an inv erse relationsh ip betw een househ old recycling rates and w hich storey of the build in g the househ old occupied, although w here there w as a lift pres en t there w as no evid en ce of a relationsh ip. The third set of conclusions concern s household characteristics. N o sign i® cant relationsh ip w as found betw een household size and recycling participation in W ester H ailes , although there w as some evid en ce that, in one area, larger househ olds tended to recycle all m aterials more than sm aller ones. In Leith there w as a sig ni® cant in¯ uen ce of househ old size w ith tw o person househ olds participating m ore. Given the low car ow nersh ip rates in many city areas, it w as interes ting that w hile access to cars w as positively related to recycling in the area containing high multi-storey blocks, the introduction of kerb sid e collection had a relatively greater positive impact upon those w ithout access to cars. In the other area, the link betw een access to cars and recyclin g behaviour w as not statistically sign i® cant. A gain this sugges ts that kerbside collection is an important policy w hen seek ing to in crease recycling in such areas. Targeting policies to improve the level of household recycling is im portant for their ef® ciency and effectiven ess . To assist this, further development of theoretical models m ust be made to fully take into account the various sign i® cant techn ical, economic, social and beh avioural factors. Importantly, the eviden ce provid ed in this paper suggests that high-rise dw ellin gs and low income, local authority housing estates can m ake a more signi® cant contribution to raisin g the national househ old recycling levels than previously consid ered . A cknow ledge m ents W e w ould like to expres s our thanks to Ed in burgh D istrict C ouncil and all those

Recycling in A reas of Lo w Incom e and M ulti-storey H ousing

559

w ho supported this research and provid ed useful comm en ts, especially Gary Turner, Gordon Green hill, Janet Bigg ar, Robin H en derson , Jill Sales and M artin Flyn n and an anonym ous referee. A ll errors rem ain those of the authors.

N otes

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

T h ere is an epistem ological d eb ate con cerning d ifferences in theoretical approach es betw een and w ithin disciplines. M any stud ies of recycling use positivist and beh avioural analyses. Som e argue fr om a positive approach that econ om ics is ex clusively con cern ed w ith ª ex ch ange values or prices irrespective of the m otives of those en tering into m arket transactionsº . Oth ers argue that d isciplines such as psychology can provide insigh ts, especially in ch oice b ehaviour (C oates, 1976; C osm ides & Tooby , 1994; see also Sim on, 1986), and that the m otives of those involved in en vironm en tal issues d o appear to b e sign i® can t. H ow ever, Gand y (1993, p. 4) adopts a n on-p ositivist theoretical fram ew ork w h en con sidering h ouseh old recycling in L on d on and H am b urg, arguing that the em pirical ph enom en a are the m anifestation of h istorical rather than un iversal processes or law s. T h ere rem ains the unresolved d iscussion as to the nature of broad for ces or `law s’ (econo m ic, political, h istorical, etc.) w h ich h elp shape (although n ot d eterm ine) the `ex ternal en vironmen t’ w ithin w h ich local actions occur and w h ich, together w ith local factors, in¯ uen ce the em pirically observed outcom es. W here separation of m aterials occu rs cen trally then it is possible to substitute F j(t) w ith F j *(t), w h ich is the poten tial fraction that it is techn ologically fea sible to separate, an d P ij (t) w ith P j *(t), w h ich is the propens ity for the central bod y to recy cle (an d m ay b e a function of the cost of separation or m arket for the m aterial to be recycled, etc.). H en ce the factors in¯ uencing F j*(t) w ill d iffer from those in¯ uencing F j(t), for ex am ple, in term s of tech nolog y for sorting and incen tives or m otivations to recycle (an d sim ilarly for P ). T h is m od el could b e gen eralized to include w aste m inimization and re-use b y incorporating these into the R , F and P terms. Gilnreiner (1994) d eveloped a m od el for V ienn a w h ich `superim posed ’ pub lic acceptan ce of w aste m inim ization an d recycling upon their poten tials (i.e. recov erable portion of househ old w aste fr actions in percen tage or tonn es). T he poten tial for recy cling is un avoid ably inaccurate as there is n o clear d ividing line b etw een ind ividual fr actions and the recoverable share of fractions can n ot b e clearly assessed . A ccor ding to the polluter pays principle, the prod ucer and con sum ers sh ould pay the full social costs of their action, preventing an und erpricing of the en viron m ent’s carrying capacity (O rgan ization for E con om ic C o-operation & D evelopmen t, 1975; B aum ol, 1977). Pearce & T urner (1992) argue that an input pack age tax (a raw m aterials levy) or an output pack aging tax (a prod uct ch arge) are m ore cos t-effective solutions than regulatory legislation for the prob lem of pack aging w aste and litter in the case of b everage con tainers. A n unintend ed alternative to h ouseh old w aste d isposal or recycling m ay be illicit b urning or d um ping. Fullerton & K inn am an (1993) put for w ard an optimizing restructure to d iscourage such burning or d um ping as these activities can not b e taxed d irectly. T h ey propose a tax on all outputs plus a reb ate on proper d isposal through either recy cling or w aste collection, i.e. essentially a d eposit-refu nd system . O n the b asis of cost± b en e® t an alysis there is a case for governm ent ® nan cial support for recycling sch em es, at least for speci® c m aterials such as n ew spapers, although such sch em es m ay be ® n ancially unviable or unattractive to the private sector (H anley & Slark, 1994). Figures on the total m aterial collected for recy cling in the areas suggest that there w as a `dem ons tration’ or `H aw thorne’ effect in¯ uen cing people’s b ehaviour d uring the ® rst eight w eeks of the n ew prog ram m e, w h en people w ere m ost en thusiastic. A fter this period recy cled m aterial collected fell to a relatively con stant level. In Leith the norm al refuse collection w as tw ice w eek ly, w ith recycling m aterial collected in special b ags at the kerbside on a separate d ay. In W ester H ailes loose refuse is put into ch utes w h ich carry the rubb ish into large bins on the ground ¯ oor. Residen ts w ere requested to place recy cling b ags into a separate special bulk w aste storage room on the ground ¯ oor. O ther `b ring’ recy cling facilities d id n ot ch ang e fr om before the program m e. T h e d ifferen ce betw een the tw o areas is further suggested b y estimating P ij for each area. Sh ortly b efore the program m e started, the n orm al h ouseh old solid w aste fr om the areas w as an alysed giving an estimate of the total w aste for individual recyclable m aterials (Q ij ). From the m odel ab ove an estimate for P ij w as calculated as the am ount of recycled m aterial collected (for the

560

6.

R. W . M cQ uaid & A . R . M urdoch speci® ed m aterials of j 5 glass, paper, m etal can s, plastics and textiles) averaged over the ® rst n ine m onths (R ij ), d ivided b y Q ij . Th is generated an estimate for P ij for all househ olds and recy clable m aterials of 0.23 a for L eith and 0.05 a for W ester H ailes (w h ere a is the con stan t 1/F j, an d is $ 1, assum ing that techn ology h ad n ot ch anged , and is close to on e assum ing that the m aterials iden ti® ed in the total w aste (Q ij ) w ere all recyclable). H ow ever, these estim ates ignore the levels of recy cling at `b ring’ collection points before the program m e (w h en the above test w as carried out). T h e low n um ber of respon ses to the questionn aire fr om those n ot participating in the recycling prog ram m e preven ted d irect com parison s betw een participants and n on -participants.

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

R eference s B all, R. & L aw son, S.M . (1990) Pub lic attitud es tow ard s glass recycling in Scotland , W aste M a n ag em ent & R esearch , 8, pp. 177± 192. B all, R. & M atthew s, R. (1988) Glass recycling by local authoritiesÐ an econ om ic evaluation, R esou rces P o licy, 14, pp. 205± 217. B ard os, P., B urton, J., B urlace, C .J., D erry, R., Ik uw e, A ., Pen d le, W ., Pr osser, H .J. & Tron , A .R. (1990) M arket B a rriers, M ater ia ls R eclam a tion a n d R ecy clin g (S tevenage, W arren Springs L aboratory, D epartm en t of T rade and Ind ustry). B arton, J.R. (1985) W aste S orting a nd R D F P rod uction in E urop e (L on d on , E lsevier A pplied Scien ti® c). B arton, J.R. (1990) U K m arket barriers an d opportunities for recycling m aterials from d om estic w aste, Pa per to First U S C on ference on M un icipal Solid W aste M anagem en t, Jun e (W ash ington, DC ). B aum ol, W .J. (1977) O n recycling as a m oot en vironmen tal issue, Jou rna l of E n vironm en ta l E co no m ics & M a n ag em ent, 4, pp. 83± 87. B urn, S.M . (1991) Social psycholog y and the stimulation of recycling beh aviors: the b lock leader approach, Jo u rnal of A p p lied So cial Ps ycho lo g y, 21, pp. 611± 629. B uttel, F.H . & Flinn, W .L . (1978) Social class an d m ass en vironm en tal beliefs: a recon sideration, E n vironm en t & B eh av io r, 10, pp. 433± 450. C airncross, F. (1991) C osting the Ea rth (Lon don , B usiness B ook s). C lyd e, L . (1994) W a sted O p po rtu nitie s? Ð T he P o te ntia l for R ecycling on In ner C ity H o u sing E states (L on d on , W aste W atch). C oates, A .W . (1976) Econ om ics and psych ology: the dea th and resurrection of a research program m e, in: S. L atsis, (Ed ) M eth o d a nd A p praisa l in E con om ics (C am b ridge, C am bridge U niversity Pr ess). C om m ission of the European C om m unities (1992) P rop osal for a C o uncil D irectiv e o n P a ck ag ing a n d P a ck ag ing W a ste (Br ussels, C EC ). C osm ides, L . & T oob y, J. (1994) B etter than rational: evolutionary psych ology and the invisible h and , A m erica n E co no m ic R ev iew , 84, 327± 332. C ouch , J.V ., Garber, T ., & C am pb ell, D .T . (1978) Respons e m aintenan ce an d paper recycling, Jo urna l o f E n vironm ental A ssista nce, 8, pp. 127± 137. D epartmen t of the En viron m ent (1990) Th is C om m o n In h erita n ce: B rita in’s En v iron m enta l Stra te gy (L on d on , H M SO ). D epartmen t of the En vironm en t (1992a) E co no m ic In strum ents an d R ecov ery o f Resou rces from W a ste (L on d on , H M SO ). D epartmen t of the En vironm en t (1992b) E n vironm ent in Tr ust: W aste M a n ag em ent a nd R ecycling (L on d on , H M SO ). D erksen , L . & Gartrell, J. (1993) T he social contex t of recycling, A m erican So ciolo g ica l Review , 58, pp. 434± 442. D e Youn g, R. (1984) M otivating people to recycle: the use of incen tives, R esource R ecycling , 42, pp. 14± 15. D e Young, R. (1989) E x ploring the d iffer en ce b etw een recyclers and non -r ecyclers: the role of inform ation, Jo urn al o f E n vironm ental S yste m s, 18, pp. 341± 351. E d inburgh D istrict Cou n cil (1993) A ttitud es to C o uncil S ervices: A n A n a ly sis of th e 1 99 2 G en eral Serv ices S u rv ey (Ed inburgh, E D C , Research U n it). E n vironmen tal Protection A gen cy (1989) Pr o m o ting S ou rce R ed uction an d R ecycla bility in the M arketp la ce , 53 0 ± S W ± 89 ± 0 6 6 (W ashington, D C , EPA ). E verett, J.W . & Peirce, J.J. (1992) Social n etw orks, socioecon om ic status, and en vironm en tal collective action: residen tial curbside block leader recycling, Jou rna l o f E n vironm en ta l S y stem s, 21, pp. 65± 84. E verett, J., Jacob s, T. & Peirce, J.J. (1991) Recycling: prom otion strategies: statistical and fuzzy set com parisons, Jo urn al o f U rban Plan ning a nd D ev elop m ent A SC E , 117, pp. 154± 167.

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

Recycling in A reas of Lo w Incom e and M ulti-storey H ousing

561

Folz, D .H . & H azlett, J.M . (1991) Pu b lic participation and recy cling perform ance: ex plaining prog ram succes s, P u blic A d m inistra tion R ev iew , 51, pp. 526± 532. Forshaw , J., H ay, A . & W righ t, G. (1990) F ashion able W aste : T he M a ke-u p o f a R ecy cler, (L eed s, Save W aste and Prosper). Fullerton, D . & K innam an, T.C . (1993) Garb age, recy cling, an d illicit burning or dum ping, N BE R W orkin g P a per N o. 4 37 4 (Bos ton, N ational Bureau for E con om ic Research ). Gam ba, R.J. & Os kam p, S. (1994) Factors in¯ uencing com m unity residents’ participation in com m ingled curbside recycling program s, E n viro nm ent a nd B eh av io ur, 26, pp. 587± 612. Gand y, M . (1993) Recy clin g an d W aste (A ldershot, A veb ury). Geller, E .S., W inett, R.A . & E verett, P.B . (1982) P reserv ing th e E n vironm ent: N ew Stra te gies for B eh a vior C h an g e (N ew York, W iley). Gilnreiner, G. (1994) W aste m inim isation an d recy cling strategies and their ch ances of succes s, W a ste M an ag em en t & R esearch , 12, pp. 271± 283. Gold en h ar, L .M . & C on n ell, C .M . (1993) U n der stan d ing an d pred icting recycling b eh avior: an application of the theory of reason ed action, Jou rna l of E nv iron m enta l Sy stem s, 22, pp. 91± 103. H anley, N . & Slark, R. (1994) C ost-ben e® t analysis of paper recycling: a case study and som e gen eral principles, Jo urna l o f E n vironm ental P la nning & M a n ag em ent, 37, pp. 189± 197. H on g, S., A d am s, R.M . & L ove, H .A . (1993) A n econ om ic analysis of h ouseh old recycling of solid w astes: the case of Por tlan d , O reg on , Jou rna l of En v iron m enta l Econ o m ics & M an ag em en t, 25, pp. 136± 146. H opper, J.R. & N ielsen, J.M . (1991) Recycling as altruistic b ehaviour, n orm ative and b eh avioral strategies to expand participation in a com m un ity recy cling program , E nv iron m ent & B eh a viou r, 23, pp. 195± 220. Jacob s, H .E . & B ailey, J.S. (1983) E valuating participation in a residen tial recycling program , Jo urna l o f E n vironm ental S yste m s, 12, pp. 141± 152. Jud ge, R. & B eck er, A . (1993) M otivating recycling: a m arginal cos t analysis, C on te m po rary Po licy Issues, 11, pp. 58± 68. K atzev, R., Blake, G. & M esser, E . (1993) D eterm inants of participation in m ulti-fam ily recycling prog ram s, Jou rna l o f A pp lied S ocia l P sy ch olog y , 23, pp. 374± 385. L uyben, P.D . & B ailey, J.S . (1979) N ew spaper recy cling: the effects of rew ards an d proxim ity of containers, E n vironm ent & B eh av io u r, 11, pp. 539± 557. M cC arty, J.A . & Sh rum , L .J. (1993) A structural equation an alysis of the relationships of person al values, attitudes and beliefs about recycling and the recycling of solid w aste prod ucts, A d v an ce s in C on sum er R esearch , 20, pp. 641± 646. M acd on ald, D . & V opn i, P. (1994) Policy b arriers to 50% d iversion of m unicipal solid w aste, W a ste M an ag em en t & R esearch , 12, pp. 257± 270. M cG uire, R. (1984) Great expectation s and garbage outcom es, A m erican Be ha v io ral Scientist, 28, pp. 93± 114. M urdoch , A .R. (1994) K erbside recycling in E d inb urgh : a case stud y, un pub lish ed M .Sc. d issertation, (E dinb urgh , N apier U n iversity). O skam p, S., H arrington, M .J., E d w ards , T .C ., Sh erw ood , D.L ., O kuda, S.M . & Sw an son , D .C . (1991) Factors in¯ uen cing h ouseh old recycling beh avior, E nv iron m ent & Be ha v iou r, 2, pp. 494± 519. O rgan ization for Econom ic C o-op eration and D evelopm ent (1975) T h e P o llute r Pa y s Pr inciple (Pa ris, O E C D ). Pay n e-C ook & A ssociates Inc (1990) H ow ’ s b ig blue doin g? A n an alysis of blue b ox usage of N orth Ed m onton residents, for Ed m on ton Recycling Society, unpublished paper (Ed m on ton, A lberta). Pea rce, D . & Turner, R.K. (1992) Pa ck aging w aste an d the polluter pays: a taxation solution, Jo urna l o f E n vironm ental P la nning & M an ag em en t, 35, pp. 5± 15. Reschov sky, J.D . & Stone, S.E . (1994) M arket incen tives to en courage household w aste recycling: paying for w h at you throw aw ay, Jo urna l o f P o licy A na ly sis & M an a gem ent, 13, pp. 120± 139. Saltzm an, C ., D uggal, V.G. & W illiam s, M .L . (1993) In com e and recycling effor t: a m ax im ization prob lem , E nerg y E co no m ics, 15, pp. 33± 38. Sch ann , J. & H olzer, E . (1990) Studies of ind ividual env iron m ental con cern: the role of know led ge, gend er an d b ack ground variables, E nv iron m ent & Be h av io ur, 22, pp. 767± 786. Sch oem aker, P.J.H . (1993) Determinants of risk-taking: b eh avioural and econ om ic view s, Jou rna l o f R isk & U n ce rtainty, 6, pp. 49± 73. Sch n aiberg, A . (1980) T h e E nv iron m ent: F rom Surp lus to S ca rcity (O x ford , O xfor d U n iversity Pr ess). Shum atz, L. (1990) Th e b uck is m ightier than the can , BioC y cle, 31, pp. 40± 42. Shef® eld K erbside C ollection Pr oject (1991) Blue Bo x A n nua l R eview , 1 9 89 /9 0 (S h ef® eld , SKC P).

Downloaded By: [JISC Collections Subscription Services] At: 15:39 14 December 2009

562

R. W . M cQ uaid & A . R . M urdoch

Sim on , H .A . (1986) Rationality in psycholog y and econ om ics, in: R. M . H og arth & M . W . Red er (E ds ) R a tion al C ho ice (L ond on, Un iversity of C h icago Pr ess). Surridge, J. (1992) C urbside recycling survey , unpublished paper, (Recy co L td). T urner, R.K. (1981). A n econ om ic evaluation of recycling schem es in E urope an d N orth A m erica, in: T . Riordan & R. K . T urn er (Ed s) P rog ress in R esou rce M a na gem ent a nd E n vironm en ta l Plan n ing (C hich ester, Joh n W iley). V ining, J. & E b reo, A . (1990a) T h e public respon se to m od el recycling program s, In stitute for E n vironm en ta l S tu d ies R esearch R epo rt N o. 1 1 (Ur b ana, U n iversity of Illinois). V ining, J. & E breo, A . (1990b) W h at m akes a recy cler? A com parison of recyclers and n on-recyclers, E n vironm en t & B eh av io r, 22, pp. 55± 73. V ining, J. & E breo, A. (1992) Pr ed icting recycling beh avior fr om global and speci® c en vironmen tal attitud es and ch anges in recy cling opportun ities, Jou rna l o f A p p lied S ocia l P sycho lo gy , 22, pp. 1580± 1607. V ining, J., L inn, N . & B urd ge, R.J. (1992) W hy recy cle? C om parison of recycling m otivations in fou r com m unities, En v iron m enta l M an ag em ent, 16, pp. 785± 797. Young, J.E . (1991) D isca rd ing th e T h row aw a y S ociety (W ashington, D C, W ord w atch). Yuhas, B . & H yd e, J. (1991) Getting m ulti-fam ily residents into the act, S o lid W a ste & Po w er, 5, pp. 54± 60.