Skip to main content
Log in

Why recycle? A comparison of recycling motivations in four communities

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Four Illinois communities with different sociode-mographic compositions and at various stages of planning for solid waste management were surveyed to determine the influence of sociodemographic variables and planning stages on the factors that motivate recycling behavior. A factor analysis of importance ratings of reasons for recycling and for not recycling yielded five factors interpreted as altruism, personal inconvenience, social influences, economic incentives, and household storage. The four communities were shown to be significantly different in multivariate analyses of the five motivational factors. However, attempts to explain these community differences with regression analyses, which predicted the motivational factors with dummy codes for planning stages, a measure of self-reported recycling behavior, and sociodemographic measures were unsatisfactory. Contrary to expectation, the solid waste management planning stages of the cities (curbside pickup, recycling dropoff center, and planning in progress) contributed only very slightly to the prediction of motivational factors for recycling. Community differences were better explained by different underlying motivational structures among the four communities. Altruistic reasons for recycling (e.g., conserving resources) composed the only factor which was similar across the four communities. This factor was also perceived to be the most important reason for recycling by respondents from all four communities. The results of the study supported the notion that convenient, voluntary recycling programs that rely on environmental concern and conscience for motivation are useful approaches to reducing waste.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Arbuthnot, J. 1977. The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental behavior and knowledge.Environment and Behavior 9:217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuthnot, J., R. Tedeschi, M. Wayner, J. Turner, S. Kressel, and R. Rush 1977. The induction of sustained recycling behavior through the foot-in-the-door technique.Journal of Environmental Systems 6:353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H., and W. L. Flinn 1974. The structure of support for the environmental movement, 1968–1970.Rural Sociology 39:56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H., and W. L. Flinn 1978. Social class and mass environmental beliefs: A reconsideration.Environment and Behavior 18:435–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Young R 1984. Motivating people to recycle: The use of incentives.Resource Recycling 42:14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Young R 1986. Some psychological aspects of recycling: The structure of conservation satisfactions.Environment and Behavior 18:435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H., and J. M. Chen, E. C. McDonel, and S. J. Sherman. 1982. Attitude accessibility, attitude-behavior consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 18:339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. 1956. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row-Peterson, Evanston, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischoff, B. 1985. Managing risk perceptions.Issues in Science and Technology 3:83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, E. S. 1989. Applied behavior analysis and social marketing: An integration for environmental preservation.Journal of Social Issues 45:17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, E. S., J. C. Farris, and D. S. Post 1973. Prompting a consumer's behavior for pollution control,Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 6:367–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, E. S., J. F. Witmer, and A. L. Orebaugh 1976. Instructions as a determinant of paper-disposal behaviors.Environment and Behavior 8:417–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, E. S., J. F. Witmer, and M. W. Tuso 1977. Environmental interventions for litter control.Journal of Applied Psychology 62:344–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, C. R., R. J. Bord, M. M. Hammond, and S. H. Mann 1977. Attitudes and conditions for cooperation in a paper recycling program.Environment and Behavior 9:107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, H. E., and J. S. Bailey 1982. Evaluating participation in a residential recycling program.Journal of Environmental Systems 12:141–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebert, R. J. 1989. Participation in a household hazardous waste collection drive and “Before” and “After” public knowledge and disposal practices: Champaign county. Hazardous Waste and Information Center, State Water Survey Division Report, Vol. I (HWRIC 87-037 and 88-037) Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Champaign, Illinois 61820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, G. D., and T. K. Pinhey 1982. Rural-urban differences in support for environmental protection.Rural Sociology 47:114–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luyben, P. D., and J. S. Bailey 1979. Newspaper recycling: The effects of rewards and proximity of containers.Environment and Behavior 11:539–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. 1984. Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed. Viking Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review 63:81–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mohai, P. 1990. Black and white differences in environmental concern and activism: Evidence from a national survey.Social Sicence Quarterly 71:744–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohai, P., and B. W. Twight 1987. Age and environmentalism: An elaboration of the Buttel model using national survey evidence.Social Forces 68:798–815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, K. 1986. Personal values and commitment to energy conservation.Environment and Behavior 18:53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, D. H., P. D. Luyben, R. J. Rawers, and J. S. Bailey 1976. Newspaper recycling behavior: The effects of prompting and proximity of containers.Environment and Behavior 8:471–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samdahl, D. M., and R. Robertson 1989. Social determinants of environmental concern: Specification and test of the model.Environment and Behavior 21:57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnelle, J. G., J. G. Gendrich, G. P. Beegle, M. M. Thomas, and M. P. McNees 1980. Mass media techniques for prompting behavior change in the community.Environment and Behavior 12:157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schann, J., and E. Holzer 1990. Studies of individual environmental concern: The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables.Environment and Behavior 22:767–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, C., M. Kriss, J. M. Darley, R. H. Fazio, L. J. Becker, and J. B. Pryor 1979. Predicting summer energy consumption from homeowners; attitudes.Journal of Applied Social Psychology 9:70–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tognacci, L. N., M. F. Weigel, M. F. Wilden, and D. T. A. Vernon 1972. Environmental quality: How universal is public concern?Environment and Behavior 4:73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, K. R., Jr., and R. E. Dunlap 1978. Rural-urban residence and concern with environmental quality: A replication and extension.Rural Sociology 43:474–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Liere, K. D., and R. E. Dunlap 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence.Public Opinion Quarterly 44:181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vining, J., and A. Ebreo 1989. An evaluation of the public response to a community recycling education program.Society and Natural Resources 2:23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vining, J., and A. Ebreo 1990a. What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and non-recyclers.Environment and Behavior 22:55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vining, J., and A. Ebreo 1990b. The public response to model recycling programs. Institute for Environmental Studies Research Report No. 11 (UILU-IES 90 0011). University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. 143 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witmer, J. F., and E. S. Geller 1976. Facilitating paper recycling: Effects of prompts, raffles, and contexts.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 9:315–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vining, J., Linn, N. & Burdge, R.J. Why recycle? A comparison of recycling motivations in four communities. Environmental Management 16, 785–797 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02645669

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02645669

Key words

Navigation