Why Some People Don’t Recycle: Environmental Concern, Recycling Knowledge, Reasons For / For Not Recycling and Future Commitment to Recycling
Daniel Arkkelin, Jason Schroeder, Keith Suchodolski, Jeremy Skrenes, & MarcosRodriquez
ValparaisoUniversity
Submitted for Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois, 2000
Abstract
Recyclers had greater procedural knowledge (but not greater content knowledge) and greater environmental concern and future commitment than did nonrecyclers. Recyclers and nonrecyclers did not differ in rated importance of reasons for recycling, but nonrecyclers attached greater importance to reasons for not recycling than did recyclers. Procedural knowledge and environmental concern were important correlates of the other variables.
A. Title: Why Some People Don’t Recycle: Environmental Concern, Recycling Knowledge, Reasons For/For Not Recycling and Future Commitment to Recycling
B. Area: Applied Social; Attitudes
C. Problem or Major Purpose: Recycling research has addressed both dispositional and external determinants of recycling behaviors (Vining & Ebreo, 1990; Guagnano, Stern, & Dietz, 1995; Lindsay & Strathman, 1997). This study compared recyclers and nonrecyclers on environmental concern, recycling content/procedural knowledge, importance of reasons for/for not recycling and future commitment to recycling. We also examined the interrelationships among these variables.
D. Procedure: A questionnaire measuring environmental concern (Dunlap & van Liere, 1978), recycling content knowledge (i.e., what is/is not recyclable), procedural knowledge (e.g., recycling bin locations), reasons for recycling (e.g., decreased landfill use), reasons for not recycling (e.g., no storage space), current recycling, and future commitment was administered to 179 undergraduate students. Based on responses to the item, "I regularly use the recycling bins in my dormitory," (1: Strongly Disagree; 5: Strongly Agree), respondents were classified as recyclers (response > 3; N = 78) or nonrecyclers (response < 3; N = 53). Differences between these two groups on the other variables were examined using t-tests, and correlations were computed among all variables for the entire sample.
E. Results: Recyclers had significantly greater procedural knowledge (but not greater content knowledge) and greater environmental concern and future commitment than did nonrecyclers (Table 1). Recyclers and nonrecyclers did not differ in rated importance of reasons for recycling, but nonrecyclers rated reasons for not recycling as significantly more important than did recyclers. Correlations (Table 2) indicated that procedural knowledge was positively related to content knowledge, environmental concern, current and future recycling. Environmental concern was positively related to content knowledge, reasons to recycle, current and future recycling. Reasons for not recycling were negatively related to procedural knowledge, current and future recycling. Future recycling was positively related to current recycling and reasons to recycle.
F. Conclusions and Implications: Recyclers’ greater procedural knowledge, environmental concern, and future commitment implies that efforts to increase recycling should focus on increasing nonrecyclers' environmental concern and specific knowledge about "how" to recycle, rather than "what" to recycle. The equal importance given to reasons for recycling by these groups, but greater importance attached to reasons not to recycle by nonrecyclers replicates Vining & Ebreo (1990). This suggests that efforts should focus on overcoming perceived barriers to recycling, rather than reiterating reasons to recycle. Environmental concern and procedural knowledge emerged as central correlates of recycling, and importance of reasons not to recycle was a negative correlate of procedural knowledge and current/future commitment to recycling.
References
Dunlap, R.E., & van Liere, K.D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4),10-19.
Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27(5), 699-718.
Lindsay, J.J., & Strathman, A. (1997). Predictors of recycling behavior: An application of a modified health belief model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(20), 1799-1823.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of Recyclers and Nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior, 22(1), 55-73.
Table 1
Comparisons Between Mean Scores of Recyclers and Non-recyclers
______
Recyclers Non-Recyclers t(129)
Procedural Knowledge (PK) 25.52 21.00 7.20***
Content Knowledge (CK) 11.15 10.09 1.97ns
Environmental Concern (EC) 44.73 40.00 4.05***
Future Commitment (FC) 19.30 14.15 7.47***
Import. Reasons For recyc. (RF) 25.13 23.80 1.59ns
Import. Reasons Not recyc. (RN) 13.34 16.89 -3.74***
______
Note. ScoreRanges: PK: 7-35; CK: 0-14; EC: 11-55; FC: 5-25;
RF: 8-40; RN: 6-30; ***p < .001; ns: nonsigificant.
Table 2
Significant Correlations Among Subscale Scores
______
PK CK EC RF RN CR FC
Proc. Know. (PK) --
Cont. Know. (CK) .17* --
Env. Concern (EC) .33** .17* --
Reas. FOR Recy. (RF) -- -- .23** --
Reas. NOT Recy. (RN) -.37** -- -- .15* --
Current Recy. (CR) .52** .17* .33** -- -.30** --
Future Commit. (FC) .45** -- .29** .21** -.39** .52** --
______
Note. *p < .05 **p < .01 (Two-tailed, df = 177).