Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Social factors influencing household waste separation: A literature

review on good practices to improve the recycling performance of
urban areas
Doris Knickmeyer

noma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Bellaterra
Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Building Z, Carrer de les Columnes, Universitat Auto
(Cerdanyola del Vall
es), Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As population density, urbanization and industrialization continue to increase, so do quantities of global
Received 26 December 2018 urban waste worldwide. Still, compact urban areas record low-performing rates of recyclables. Improving
Received in revised form the recycling performance in order to recover qualitative materials, save resources and keep waste out of
24 September 2019
landfills belongs to the pressing challenges of our time. Moving towards a circular economy requires
Accepted 25 September 2019
Available online 15 October 2019
active public participation in waste management and pre-sorting of wastes at home. In the process of
establishing and improving well-performing municipal solid waste management systems (MSWMS) the
Handling Editor: Xin Tong understanding of fundamental social factors to influence household behaviour is commonly under-
estimated but of utmost importance. Compiling theory and good practices from cities globally, this paper
Keywords: intends to support practitioners and policy makers from different backgrounds to design future strategies
Behaviour change and interventions to motivate household waste separation behaviour. By means of an extensive literature
Household waste review a general overview of the main social factors influencing household recycling behaviour is given
Municipal waste management and key motivation drivers for behavioural change are identified. Followed by a presentation of inter-
Recycling behaviour
national good practices and recommendations for urban areas, special attention was given to high-
Social factors
density contexts. The results in combination are supposed to serve as a resource for practitioners and
Waste separation
as a basis to develop further studies focusing on the improvement of recycling behaviour in defined
urban areas and tailored to the local situation.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Material and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Social factors influencing household waste separation behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Demographic characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Psychological factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Perceived convenience and effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. State of knowledge and information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Social norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.4. Moral norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.5. Attitude and environmental concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.6. Recycling habit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.7. System trust and community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Economic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Political background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Planning behaviour change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Team constitution and stakeholder consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118605
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

4.2. Preliminary investigations and monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5. Good practices to improve the recycling performance of urban households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Consistent laws and policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Positive image of authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Collaboration with community groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.1. Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.2. Targeting the household as a collective unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.3. Reaching out to new residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.4. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.5. Door-Stepping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.6. Message frequency, reminder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Public education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5.1. Education and information programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5.2. Waste awareness and education for children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6. Social modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6.1. Presentation of social norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6.2. Social punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6.3. Comparative feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6.4. Neighbourhood block leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7. Environmental alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.7.1. Collection scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.7.2. Provision of bins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.7.3. Recycling-bin-to-garbage-bin ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.7.4. Design and labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.8. Economic incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.8.1. Fee system: Pay-As-You-Throw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.8.2. Fines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.8.3. Positive rewards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Good practices for compact cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. The problematic of household recycling in compact cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. Considerations for high-density areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.1. Working with property owners, architects and private waste managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.2. Dealing with small storage space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.3. Tailor solutions to type of building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Conclusions and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1. Introduction already full. China’s decision to ban the import of foreign garbage
served as a ‘global recycling wakeup call’ (Kottasova , 2018). The
Moving towards a circular economy, reducing resource con- United Nations Environment Programme regards waste manage-
sumption and tackling pollution worldwide requires not only the ment (WM) as a ‘basic human right’. Addressing more than half of
prevention and reduction of waste in the first place, but the the Sustainable Development Goals, WM promises significant
adaptation of existing policies and services accompanied by a greenhouse gas reductions and thus has the highest political pri-
change in consumer culture and behaviour. The United Nations ority (Wilson, 2015). As stated in the World Economic and Social
project that 68% of the world population will live in urban areas by Survey 2013, the reduction of waste production, improvement of
2050 (UN DESA, 2018). As the population grows globally, rural waste collection and recycling systems are amongst the most
populations are migrating to cities (UN DESA, 2017). According to pressing challenges of our time, and investments in strategies are
the Global Waste Management Outlook, the rapid improvement of needed in most cities worldwide (UN DESA, 2013). To address our
standard of living and income e especially in developing and resource problem the European Commission released the Waste
industrializing countries e coincides with increased resource Framework Directive (EU, 2008) and the Circular Economy package
consumption and the generation of more waste. As population (EC, 2015). The objectives include recycling 50% of urban waste by
density, urbanization and industrialization continue to increase, so 2020 and reusing ‘waste’ as a resource whenever possible,
too are global urban waste quantities (which are already estimated accompanied by an overall reduction of waste.
to be at 2 billion tons of municipal solid waste per year) (Wilson, As urban residents generate large quantities of municipal
2015). Municipal solid waste management systems (MSWMS) are wastes, their participation in the MSWMS by pre-sorting common
put under tremendous pressure and the World Bank’s Urban household waste streams at source is critical to reduce the amount
Development department warns that communal budgets will be of contamination that could ruin batches of recycled material
exhausted intrinsically (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). (RECYCLING magazin, 2018). It is fundamental for improving the
The growth of urban wastes is a critical global issue because it overall recycling performance and enabling the maximum recovery
poses a threat to human health and the environment if not properly of useful resources (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). Moreover, re-
dealt with. Concerns include emissions coming from waste quirements for quality of recyclate are becoming more strict and
decomposition in landfill sites and the simple fact that landfills are the rejection of loads due to ineffective recycling behaviour can
 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605 3

entail large financial impacts (Jesson et al., 2014). Efficient recycling literature review. Given the urgency of the issue, this approach has
systems depend upon how well the public participates (Thomas, been favoured over a more systematic statistical analysis one in
2001). Yet, recycling rates from densely populated urban cities order to open up a new perspective on the topic and focus on
are under-performing in comparison with less populated areas findings that pave the way for workable solutions and further
(Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013). Thus, local decision-makers bear a research. The databases ScienceDirect, as the widest search engine
great responsibility as they determine whether the common global for peer-reviewed scientific literature, and ResearchGate, for its
WM goals will be accomplished. In the process of establishing and approach to connect scientists and make research open, were
improving well-performing MSWMS the understanding of funda- chosen to be searched. The keywords used e household, recycling,
mental social factors to influence public behaviour is commonly social, waste separation and behaviour e were directly derived from
underestimated but of utmost importance. the guiding research objectives. This search enabled to identify the
In scientific research also, this specific topic does not receive the most relevant and recent systematic literature reviews and meta-
necessary attention and few give weight to it. Research on social analyses in the field (Ma and Hipel, 2016; Miafodzyeva and
dimensions of MSWMS is absolutely underrepresented e out of the Brandt, 2013; Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). Hence, the existing
total number of publications on ‘municipal solid waste’ they had a literature is taken into account and served as a content basis for the
share of 0,69% in 2014 (Ma and Hipel, 2016). Although more conceptual structure of this literature review, reflected in the table
attention is being paid to social dimensions of MSWMS recently, of contents. Based on that, the search for scientific as well as grey
the majority of these results are geographically restricted. To the literature was then expanded with more specific keywords e such
best knowledge of the author, the most recent synthesizing meta- as convenience, norms, moral, attitude, habit and trust in section 3,
analyses of literature dealing with the specific topic of recycling education, community, communication, incentives and rewards in
behaviour amongst householders and summarizing its de- section 5 and compact and high-density in section 6. These key-
terminants are by (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013) and - with a words have been chosen because they proved to be promising
special focus on psychology e (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). success factors in both the reviewed scientific literature as well as
Further, a systematic literature review by Ma and Hipel (2016) practical reports from waste management experts. Furthermore,
globally detects issues in the social dimensions of MSWMS with a synonyms and the reference lists of reviewed papers were scanned
focus on vulnerability, public participation, public attitude, behav- to find more relevant literature.
iour and policy. A summary of literature that is going beyond this To answer the first research objective, only peer-reviewed sci-
scope and focuses specifically on the current challenges of urban entific literature has been considered. In order to find evidence on
areas while delivering solution-oriented results is non-existent. good practices from cities and high-density population areas for the
Based on the above-mentioned scientific research and outlined second and third research objective, the search has been expanded
gaps, this paper aims to deliver a solution-oriented approach. to the common search engines Google and Ecosia. Regarding their
Compiling theory and good practices from cities globally, this practical relevance, findings from grey literature and less academic
article intends to achieve a greater depth of understanding and sources have been explicitly searched for. Among other sources,
illustrate the importance of the relevant social factors. Moreover, working papers by non-governmental organizations, newspaper
the research aspires to provide practical insights as a means of and online magazine articles and blog articles available online
orientation and inspiration to develop the right strategies for spe- contributed significantly to the results. To investigate which cities
cific local contexts. Therefore, the paper is explicitly not limited to perform in an exemplary way, the recycling rates compared by
western-developed countries and comes from the point of view Greenfield (2016) have been traced and city administration web-
that WM is a global issue demanding collaboration and coopera- sites were consulted. Additionally, online available reports on waste
tion. In this context, the main objectives guiding this research are: management and recycling were reviewed. The most relevant re-
ports providing in-depth insights on good practices were:
(1) Determining the social factors influencing household waste
separation behaviour,
“Barriers to Recycling: A review of evidence since 2008”, pub-
(2) Presenting recommendations and good practices from cities lished by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP,
all over the world to improve this behaviour and a UK Charity);
(3) Highlighting those factors with the potential to improve
the “Global Waste Management Outlook”, published by the
recycling in densely populated areas. United Nations Environment Programme;

“Best Environmental Management Practice for the Waste
The structure of the article follows accordingly. Section 2 de- Management Sector”, published by the Circular Economy and
scribes the research material and methods. Section 3 gives a Industrial Leadership Unit of the Joint Research Centre, the
comprehensive theoretical overview of social factors influencing European Commission’s science and knowledge service;
household waste separation behaviour. The following section 4 is a
“Assessment of separate collection schemes in the 28 capitals of
special chapter on planning behaviour change, in order to support the EU”, a final report for the European Commission issued by
practitioners and to incorporate selected recommendations. In BiPRO and the Copenhagen Resource Institute.
section 5 good practices to improve the recycling performance of
urban areas are presented. Building on this, section 6 is dealing Papers were preferably selected if they provided insights on
with the problematic of compact cities. Finally, section 7 presents adaptation to local conditions and innovation, while studies which
the conclusions and outlook. This framework offers relevant sup- did not contribute sufficient information on waste separation
port for WM practitioners and policy makers from different back- behaviour were excluded. In this respect, the selection of papers
grounds to design future strategies and interventions to improve was not geographically restricted in order to produce results of
their recycling rates by motivating household waste separation global relevance. The selected papers originate from 25 different
behaviour. countries. However, it must be mentioned here that e presumably
partly due to the linguistic restriction to English e the selected
2. Material and methods papers mainly originated in Western countries. The largest
numbers of publications come from the UK (27), the United States
The method used to conduct this paper was an exploratory (22) and Sweden (9). Whilst publications from Africa are
4 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

Table 1
Types and number of all documents used.

Types of documents Number of documents

Scientific journal articles 65

Scientific publications, books, presentations 11
Reports, case studies, project reviews 31
Newspaper/Online magazine/News website articles 25
Press release, statement, plan, working paper 4
Website passim, blog article, broadcast, documentary 24
Policy, law, juridicial paper 6
166

1999e2008 (Fig. 2). The 4 sources concerning laws were also

excluded from Fig. 2. Table 1 is giving an overview on the types of
all used documents and the number of documents per category.

3. Social factors influencing household waste separation

behaviour

To ensure the efficiency of MSWMS and achieve higher recycling

rates, active household participation is indispensable. Their
contribution includes the correct separation of recyclables at home,
Fig. 1. The distribution of the selected publications per geographical region. eventual cleaning, storing and disposing of the closest municipal
waste containers. In synergy with the given local infrastructure,
legal conditions and interaction of WM agents (administration,
underrepresented, no South American scientific publications were packaging manufacturers, businesses, households and waste
considered (see Fig. 1). Except for fundamental theory, publications managers), numerous social factors influence recycling behaviour,
older than the year 1999 were not considered. The time frame of but usually receive less attention when it comes to the design of
the past 20 years was chosen in order to present findings which MSWMS.
respond to current social developments - thus being most relevant The capture rates of recyclates vary significantly between frac-
to become the basis for further research. Papers published later tions of waste, cities and neighbourhoods and so do the individual
than May 2018 have not been taken into account for this review. A and households waste separation behaviours (Klo €ckner and
final inventory was made of in total 166 references, of which 57 are Oppedal, 2011). Obviously there is not ‘one applicable system that
online references (excluded from Figs. 1 and 2). From the remaining serves them all’ e reflected in the differences of MSWMS imple-
109 references, 76 can be qualified as scientific publications e of mented in different areas. The more the MSWMS corresponds to
which 65 have been published in scientific journals. The most cited local conditions, the more efficient it is. To personalize the content,
journals are Waste Management (13x), Resources, Conservation it is fundamental to connect the design of the action plan with a
and Recycling (13x) and Environment and Behaviour (5x). deeper knowledge of the system users’ characteristics (Varotto and
Furthermore, 29 reports are included in the literature review. The Spagnolli, 2017). Here, social factors are defined as all influences
distribution of papers by year from 1971 to 2018 is presented in that affect an individual’s or group’s behaviour (Whishaw et al.,
Fig. 2. The majority of the selected papers were published in the last 2006). This definition includes a broad range of factors, which
decade (69x), less than a third (31x) was published in the period cannot all be included in this review. The literature offers

Fig. 2. The distribution of the selected publications per year (1971e2018).

 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605 5

contradictory evidence regarding the correlation of several social inconvenience).

factors with recycling behaviour and their relevance depends on Although some may not consider external factors (referred to as
the different local contexts (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013). situational-contextual, technological or organizational) as socio-
Therefore, the aim of this review is not to discuss all social factors in psychological, because they are related to the infrastructure and
detail but to give an overview of existing ones and based on those service provision, they are of significant importance in the behav-
present good practices. However, one has to be aware of the ioural context. It appears that they influence the internal factors
interdependence of all factors: it is the combination of a set of (Tonglet et al., 2004). In fact, lack of necessary infrastructure can be
different factors that determines household waste separation one of the most important barriers for households to participate in
behaviour. recycling activities (Timlett and Williams, 2009). Even slight changes
enhancing convenience can substantially impact behaviour (Science
3.1. Demographic characteristics Daily, 2017). For source-separation it is stressed that these adjust-
ments must happen inside the household (Bernstad et al., 2013).
As highlighted before, it is obligatory to examine who has to The following variables bear the potential to influence conve-
interact with the given recycling system: the user. Recycling nience positively and can be modified by the local MSWMS but also
behaviour and related barriers vary by socio-demography; there- the household itself (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013; Thomas and
fore the MSWMS ought to be adjusted to the characteristics of its Sharp, 2013; Becker, 2014; Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017):
targeted social groups.
Links between household waste separation behaviour and a
Short distance and strategic location of collection points for
variety of individual socio-demographic attributes have been pre- recyclables
viously studied (see Table 2).
Ease of access and availability of bins
The effects of socio-demographic variables on recycling rates
Appropriate storage space at the household
and their effects on factors that influence recycling behaviour were
Availability of curb-side collection
reviewed profoundly by Becker (2014).
High frequency of collection

Clean appearance of the recycling site
3.2. Psychological factors
Smart visual design of collection points (colour, shape, capacity)

Further various external and internal socio-psychological var- Perceived effort, particularly the time factor, is also linked to
iables determine recycling behaviour. Several theoretical frame- convenience (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013).
works have been developed over the last decades by social
psychologists to investigate, model and predict recycling behaviour 3.2.2. State of knowledge and information
in relation with its determinants. The following section provides an As Barr pinpoints, “knowledge for action is a significant prereq-
overview of the main findings and theories. uisite for behaving in an appropriate manner and would be a signifi-
cant barrier to action if levels were low” (2007). He refers to abstract
3.2.1. Perceived convenience and effort and concrete knowledge e i.e. general awareness of environmental
One of the most important factors to increase household waste problems and knowing the specific local recycling services. With
separation behaviour is convenience (Ando and Gosselin, 2005; regard to the situational variables described in 3.2.1, the latter is
Barr, 2007; Bernstad, 2014; Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013; Schwab crucial (Barr, 2007). The continuing change of MSWMS (e.g.
et al., 2014). The perception of convenience depends on the indi- specification of wanted/unwanted materials) and population
vidual who is desired to participate in the sorting system. In short: mobility pose learning barriers. In combination with varying sys-
the easier it is to understand and use the system, the more likely it tems in different areas and buildings, recycling appears more
is to be used and vice versa (perceived difficulty results in complex to some residents (Jesson et al., 2014). While under-
standing the classification is complicated for some people in gen-
Table 2 eral (Tsaur, 2014), new material-mixes and multi-component
Socio-demographic characteristics and household waste separation. packaging further complicate the learning of how to dispose them
Socio-demographic attributes Linked to recycling behaviour in …
properly and risk the creation of ever more confusion (Schüßler,
2012). Confusing recycling logos on packaging and a poor under-
Age Miafodzyeva and Brandt (2013)
standing of waste treatment activities (people do not understand
Income
Education level the value) exacerbate knowledge barriers (Jesson et al., 2014). This
Gender may be particularly problematic for growing numbers of ‘new
Dwelling Type immigrants’, as they are not initially familiar with local (recycling)
Family size regulations or potentially even the language (Miafodzyeva and
Presence of emigrants
Population Density
Brandt, 2013).
Political allegiance
Religious Identity 3.2.3. Social norms
Ethnicity Fundamental for the desired conduct of household waste sep-
Homeownership Yau (2012) aration is the intention to do so. Based on the frequently applied
Household Type Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen (1991), the intention
Household size to recycle can be predicted by positive attitude towards recycling,
Employment Status Becker (2014) social norms1 representing the expectations of relevant people
Political beliefs (“social pressure”) and perceived behavioural control, which is the
Belonging to cultural group
feeling of being able to perform the intended recycling behaviour
Presence of children in household Vicente and Reis (2008) € ckner and Oppedal, 2011; Wan et al., 2017). Social norms are
(Klo
Marital status Tsaur (2014)

Social class Iyer and Kashyap (2007) 1

Synonymously used for ‘subjective norms’.
6 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

determined by local culture and context (Becker, 2014). They Attitudinal barriers to recycling can be beliefs (no environmental/
control behaviour without legal enforcement (Kessler and Fritsche, social benefits, no personal reward for efforts), common mis-
2018) e adherence is rewarded with societal approval (Wan et al., conceptions and concerns (regarding food waste e.g. hygiene and
2017). smell) (Jesson et al., 2014).
Applied to recycling, the influence of others (e.g. family,
neighbours, friends) offer guidance and can create more positive 3.2.6. Recycling habit
intentions to recycle and enhance the consequent action e espe- As a behaviour that is carried out on a daily basis under similar
cially in places with a high visibility of behaviour (Barr et al., 2001). conditions, recycling has the potential to turn into habitual
In consonance with Bandura’s social learning theory, proposing behaviour (Klo €ckner and Oppedal, 2011; Wood et al., 2002).
that in the social learning system new patterns of behaviour can be Turning the established household pattern of using a single bin into
acquired through direct experience or by observing the behaviour the “automatic” sorting of waste into different containers (Timlett
of others (Bandura, 1971), parental behaviour was found to impact and Williams, 2009) requires strong internal motivation and is
the children’s subjective norms about recycling (Matthies et al., affected by attitude and social norms (Li et al., 2017). Consideration
2012). Thomas and Sharp (2013) suggest that the ‘social pressure’ of each step in the recycling process (e.g. sorting, washing, storing,
arising from the knowledge that others recycle, is more powerful disposal) is recommended to understand it (Knussen and Yule,
than the one created by other people having the expectation that 2008). The frequency of past behaviours is important, but also is
one should recycle. However, it appears that in well-established a stable context - constant awareness of action is not necessary
recycling schemes social pressure is not significantly correlated to (Thomas and Sharp, 2013). The conceptual framework of the Waste
recycling (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013). and Resources Action Programme in the UK refers to the ‘concept
of recycling competence’, according to which the ideal state of
3.2.4. Moral norms habitual optimum household recycling behaviour is developed by a
Additionally internal personal norms motivate household waste learning cycle in which people “move from a state of unconscious
separation behaviour and intention (Klo € ckner and Oppedal, 2011; incompetence [not aware, don’t care], through conscious incom-
Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013). It appears that personal or moral petence (recognition of the need to change), to conscious compe-
norms internalize social norms over time (Schwartz, 1977). In tence (learning to be better) and finally to unconscious competence
comparison to social norms, which are executed by expressed (dis-) [embedded systematic routine]” (Jesson et al., 2014). Thomas and
approval from others, moral norms are self-enforced (Hage et al., Sharp (2013) add that for non-recyclers a ‘disruption’ is needed,
2009). Following the norm-activation model, altruistic behav- e.g. a change of situation or routine, enabling to revaluate the
iour is mainly driven by feelings of moral obligation to act behaviour. On the other hand these changes form an obstacle for
(Schwartz, 1977). On this basis, “people might develop a feeling of people already having established a habit of recycling (3.2.2)
moral responsibility to recycle, if they are aware of the negative con- (Jesson et al., 2014). Lack of recycling habit can in turn impact the
sequences of not recycling, if they are aware that their behaviour has a intention to recycle, independent of past recycling behaviour
significant impact on the waste problem, if they feel capable of recy- (Knussen and Yule, 2008).
cling, and if they finally experience the expectation of other people
they value to participate in the recycling program” (Klo € ckner and 3.2.7. System trust and community
Oppedal, 2011). Generally residents will sort wastes if they feel a Another driver of recycling behaviour is the household’s system
personal responsibility to do so (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013), trust in the local authority and the recycling program (Loan et al.,
which, when acknowledged, can be viewed as civic duty (Xu et al., 2017). System or institutional trust is “created and sustained by
2016). Moral concerns may even lower the perceived ‘costs‘ for the continual, ongoing, and confirmatory experience of a social sys-
carrying out recycling (Berglund, 2006). Ultimately Thomas and tem’s functioning” (Rompf, 2014). Residents with good relationships
Sharp point out that if the expectation to recycle is included in the with the local government are more receptive to the recycling re-
personal norms, the individual will identify as being a recycler quirements (Jesson et al., 2014) and shown to perform better (Xu
(2013). et al., 2016). Commitment is undermined by mistrust. People’s
relationship with place and the local neighbourhood is also sig-
3.2.5. Attitude and environmental concern nificant. As highlighted before, population mobility in big cities is
Attitude towards recycling and general environmental concern increasing and so does the percentage of private renters and short-
significantly influence recycling behaviour and willingness to to-medium term tenants. These people often lack a direct service
recycle (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013; Wan et al., 2017). Based on relationship with the local authority (or don’t even know who that
the TPB, Wan et al. (2017) define “experiential attitude is an in- is), which represents another challenge for improving recycling
dividual’s affective feelings toward behavior (e.g., recycling is good behaviour (Jesson et al., 2014). Additionally, ‘sense of community’,
behavior); whereas instrumental attitude refers to an individual’s referring to the level of social interaction, is regarded as increas-
evaluation of behavior’s outcomes (e.g., recycling could reduce landfill ingly important (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013; Tonglet et al.,
burden).” Pro-recycling attitudes are found to be the strongest 2004).
motivator to recycle, influenced by “having appropriate opportu-
nities, facilities and knowledge” and “by not being physically pre- 3.3. Economic factors
vented to recycle (time, space, inconvenience)” (Tonglet et al., 2004).
Acknowledging the complexity of behaviour as “a function of the Moreover it is suggested that economic factors - perceived
organism and its environment”, the Attitude-Behaviour-Context- convenience and financial costs e strongly influence household
Theory was developed by Stern (2000) and states that the depen- recycling behaviour (Jenkins et al., 2003). People are said to be
dence of behaviours on attitude decreases with difficulty, time- primarily utility maximizers motivated by costs and benefits
effort and costs unless the context encourages it (such as reward (Saphores et al., 2006). Rompf (2014) applied the rational choice
for or requirement of the behaviour). Applied to recycling, the theory, according to which alternatives are evaluated in order to
external structural conditions were found to impact the attitude- best satisfy preferences, to the cost-benefit structure of recycling:
behaviour-relationship (Ølander and Thøgersen, 2005). “an actor engages in recycling and waste separation only if the
 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605 7

expected utility of recycling, minus the costs associated with it, the ‘backbone’ of improving separate collection in Austria (R4R,
exceeded that of conventional waste disposal.” Yau (2012) also states 2014a). To transform policy making and change behaviour in
that rational individuals will not sort waste for “little or no economic ways that serve both individuals and society, some governments
gain”. This ‘feasibility’ of waste separation for the household is successfully involve a “Behavioural Insights Team” (also called
mainly reliant on the variables presented in 3.2.1. Lower socio- ‘Nudge Unit’2, Hansen, 2016), consisting of psychologists and
economic groups tend to spend less effort on recycling activities economists (The Economist, 2012; Institute for Government,
due to the simple fact that they have more pressing needs. On the MINDSPACE Behavioural Economics).
other hand, financial incentives may be an effective driver for low- Notably, Zero Waste South Australia, a specially created gov-
income-households, e.g. benefiting from selling recyclables: it de- ernment body for good resource management, drives forward
pends on the right ‘stimulus’ (Martin et al., 2006). Another related recycling with its revenue stream linked to a landfill tax e for every
economic factor is the households’ willingness to pay for the dollar charged, 50 cents go to ZWSA initiatives (UN-HABITAT, 2010).
recycling service (Saphores et al., 2006; Vassanadumrongdee and
Kittipongvises, 2018). 4.2. Preliminary investigations and monitoring

3.4. Political background When it comes to improving recycling behaviour, many honour
the performance of Scandinavian countries. It is appropriate here to
Laws and regulations are influential external factors that in- mention that Sweden addressed waste issues very early on, starting
crease the pressure on people to recycle (Iyer and Kashyap, 2007) studies in 1969 and special programs for research and development
and can influence moral norms (Hage et al., 2009; Schwartz, 1977). in 1974 (Miliute and Plepys, 2009). Although comprehensive pre-
While in some areas the acceptance of legal norms is the most liminary research is considered to require high expenditures of
common reason for recycling (Miafodzyeva, 2012), they appear less time and costs, it is a prerequisite to reveal the determinants and
influential in others (Hage et al., 2009). The need for further barriers of household recycling behaviour in the context of its tar-
research was highlighted by Miafodzyeva and Brandt (2013). geted areas. Careful analysis allows tailoring the interventions to the
specific needs of their audience and making them more convincing
4. Planning behaviour change (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). In community-based social mar-
keting, consumer research and attention to detail appear to be
Waste practitioners and policy makers in cities across the globe successful tools (McKenzie-Mohr, 2002). To achieve social change
are facing the challenge of designing strategies and behaviour in- the use of marketing theory, skills and practices is key: recycling
terventions to improve the recycling performance of their systems behaviour is considered being the product that has to be ‘sold’ to the
and recover the maximum amount of resources. Before presenting ‘consumer’-households and researched likewise (Shrum et al.,
good practices, some preliminary considerations regarding the 1994). The likewise segmentation of households according to their
planning process will be examined in order to support the utility of attitudes towards recycling (just as consumer grouping) serves as a
this paper. base for a social marketing plan (Vicente and Reis, 2007).
To better understand the situational context for behaviour when
4.1. Team constitution and stakeholder consultation planning interventions to maximize recycling, the ISB-model
(infrastructure, service and behaviour) was developed for waste
Firstly, an integrated approach is required to achieve sustainable practitioners (Timlett and Williams, 2011). Timlett and Williams’
WM. As a best practice public engagement is recommended: all (2009) recycling behaviour typology grouped into ‘sustained
stakeholders having a direct interest in the outcome of policy de- recycler’, ‘non-recycler’, ‘stopped recycler’ and ‘new recycler’ may
cisions should have the chance to shape them (Defra, 2005a, also be useful. Investigation into the reasons why people do not, or
2005b; Garnett and Cooper, 2014). This principle of ‘user inclu- seldom recycle allow householders who do not (wholly) participate
sivity’ (UN-HABITAT, 2010) refers to the active involvement and in MSWMS to be specifically targeted (Martin et al., 2006). Further,
participation of all system users e waste processors (formal and the use of a geo-demographic segmentation tool at local neigh-
informal recyclers), waste generators (households, industries and bourhood level is suggested to aid selection of the focus areas
agriculture) and government institutions (regulators, waste man- (Jesson et al., 2014).
agers and urban planners) (Kurian, 2006). In fact, many MSWMS failures are caused by lack of preliminary
Principally, local authorities need to realize the potential of in- investigation and cannot be retraced due to missing monitoring
clusive decision processes: being open to public input and consid- data (Yau, 2012). Moreover, official statistics may not display the
ering a variety of viewpoints enables decisions based upon local actual situation, as households are in a constant ‘state of flux’
knowledge and include different interests (e.g. regarding relevant (Timlett and Williams, 2009). Authorities are urged to provide the
risks) (Garnett and Cooper, 2014). In turn, the consultation makes means for systematically monitoring and reporting behaviour
the public feel ownership for the WM programmes (Wilson, 2015). change initiatives in order to identify measures of costs and out-
The creation of an effective dialogue builds trust and prevents comes (Seyring et al., 2015; Southerton et al., 2011; Wilson, 2015).
problems, particularly in ‘hard to reach communities’ (Garnett and
Cooper, 2014). For the evaluation of several ‘what-if’ scenarios by
stakeholders an agent-based simulation framework for collab- 5. Good practices to improve the recycling performance of
orative decision making has been developed (Meng et al., 2016; urban households
Shi et al., 2014).
The diversity of presented factors makes it recommendable to The social factors discussed previously tend to occur together
recruit specialist expertise (Li et al., 2017). This may involve aca-
demics who specialise in the application of behaviour change
2
theory in the waste sector, NGOs and community groups (Brook The “nudge” theory draws on behavioural economics. American sociologists
Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein describe it as “any aspect of the choice architecture
Lyndhurst, 2007). The Zero Waste International Alliance suggests that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or
the establishment of a “Zero Waste Advisory Board”. Specially significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the
trained “municipal environment & waste consultants” are stated as intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates.”
8 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

and jointly contribute to the household recycling performance. To have included this aspirational goal in their legislation and strate-
improve, they need to be triggered in synthesis. In the following gies to tackle waste problems e working towards the sustainable
sections practical recommendations from cities worldwide will be development goals, optimum recycling and resource recovery
reviewed. The aim is not to present solutions that are applicable simultaneously (Zaman, 2015). Several case studies conducted by
everywhere, but to draw attention to the possible ways in which ZWE prove the effectiveness of the policies in terms of boosting
each might improve recycling in practice. As stated in an interna- recycling and stimulating impressive rates of waste reduction
tional review of behaviour change initiatives, attempts to transfer (Oblad, 2018; Simon, 2018). Policies can set the base for social
and replicate presented initiatives need to be sensitive to local norms by increasing the visibility of recycling efforts to neighbours
factors. It is beneficial to seek advice from those involved in their (Hage et al., 2009). Consistent recycling laws and policies should be
implementation and to exchange knowledge and facilitate learning implemented by all authority bodies and their enforcement should
opportunities globally (Southerton et al., 2011). For practitioners it receive consideration respectively (Jesson et al., 2014).
is suggested to take a closer look at successful cities of comparable Austria’s former environment minister Nikolaus Berlakovich
size. The International Recycling Rate Comparison Project sug- stated several factors as crucial to the success of recycling in
gests, there is a problematic lack of data consistency across re- Austria: the regulatory framework prescribing the requirements for
ported recycling rates of major cities worldwide, which makes it a sustainable waste treatment, the implementation of economic
difficult to make reasonable statements when comparing them incentives (producer responsibilities and landfill/incineration tax),
(Greenfield, 2016). For example, many cities include household regular waste controls and monitoring systems and lastly education
waste in their municipal solid waste recycling rate. For the devel- and training programmes in combination with comprehensive in-
opment of this paper the revised rates of the project report were formation campaigns (Assises Nationales Des De chets).
useful. In a research based on 46 interviews with waste management
The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs experts from Bulgaria and Belgium the “proper legal framework,
(Defra) recognized an overview of factors as necessary to trigger control, and common and coordinated use of fiscal and eco-in-
and sustain change in public behaviour: enablers (removal of bar- struments” also turned out to be the top three factors when it comes
riers and provision of infrastructure, education, information), to the successful implementation of policy instruments (Bozhikin
encouragement (taxes, penalties, rewards, social pressure), engage- et al., 2017).
ment (communication, community involvement) and exemplifica-
tion (consistent policies, leading by example) (Defra, 2006). Varotto 5.2. Positive image of authority
and Spagnolli (2017) give an overview on more than 50 studies of
intervention strategies and their effectiveness. Obviously, a “mix” of To raise awareness, public relations and a positive image of the
instruments and measures is the key to high recycling perfor- local WM authority play a very important role, particularly when a
mances (R4R, 2014a; Seyring et al., 2015). new separate collection system is implemented (Seyring et al.,
2015). As previously mentioned, system trust is an important
5.1. Consistent laws and policies driving force behind behaviour (3.2.7). Jesson et al. (2014) suggest
that “the persuasive influence of local authority messages and com-
The legal requirement of household recycling in the cities with munications is enhanced by the existence of a strong and trusted
the highest reported rates varies significantly. Referring to relationship between people and their neighbourhood, and with their
Singapore, “[…] In most cases people do not recycle simply because local council”. To influence behaviour through public policy the
they are not required to do so,” said Tong Yen Wah, co-director of the MINDSPACE3 framework was developed, underlining the impor-
Energy and Environmental Sustainability Solutions for Megacities tance of the relationship with the delivering messenger and
program at the NUS Environmental Research Institute (Sile, 2016). context for effective communication (Dolan et al., 2010).
In a report for the European Commission the legal trans- In Hong Kong urbanites perceived the MSWMS as ‘broken’ or
positions of separate collection schemes in the 28 EU capitals were ‘non-existent’ and the results were low participation and system
reviewed. Regarding the setting of legislation, the introduction of distrust (Woodring, 2016). The development of a strong leadership
mandatory separate collection systems for certain municipal in local authorities can be improved through reliability (ability to
waste fractions (waste paper, packaging, bio-waste) was recom- effectively treat sorted waste), legitimacy (punitive measures) and
mended (Seyring et al., 2015). Waste separation at the household effectiveness (dissemination of information about the program
level needs to become part of a new WM policy or bye-law to benefits), such as: strict refuse of unsorted waste by the communal
enhance reuse (Ekere et al., 2009). In Germany, which has a long collectors (Loan et al., 2017). Vienna, already enjoying a good image
legal recycling history, the so-called circular economy law (KrWG) amongst citizens, uses the easy identification of all city collection
obliges private households to separate their waste since 2015 with vehicles through corporate design as a permanent positive adver-
different regulations at the local level. tisement for the authority (Seyring et al., 2015). Noteworthy is the
In the U.S., Woodbury (New Jersey) became the first city to unusual popularity witnessed by Sweden’s recycling brand Pan-
mandate recycling and promoted a curb-side pickup program. The tamera by turning Cuban song “Guantanamera” into its official
residents reacted by throwing trash on the lawn of then-mayor Don jingle and sponsoring a series of songs using the tune to go with
Sanderson, but within three months the city reached 85% compli- their name e meaning “deposit more” (Hamilton, 2016). They even
ance (Goodyear). As another ‘recycling leader’ worldwide, San engaged Swedish musicians to make hit songs about recycling,
Francisco adopted a Zero Waste Strategy - aiming to “send zero resulting in ear-worms with lyrics “recycle more” (Dabitch, 2014).
waste to landfill” by 2020 (SF Environment, 2003). The local
municipal “Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance” 5.3. Collaboration with community groups
was passed in 2009, requiring all residents to separate their re-
cyclables at source (SF Environment, 2009). Another good practice is inviting press and interested
Supported by organizations such as Zero Waste Europe (ZWE)
and the Zero Waste International Alliance, ‘zero waste’ is presented
as a holistic alternative solution for MSWMS (Vilella, 2016; Connett, 3
MINDSPACE is an acronym for Messenger, Incentives, Norms, Defaults, Salience,
2013). Cities worldwide (such as Adelaide, Vancouver, Barcelona) Priming, Affect, Commitments and Ego.
 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605 9

stakeholders (associations, NGOs) to explain/demonstrate new campaign (Zhu, 2016). Depending on the targeted audience, the use
steps in the collection system, even better if performed highly- of flyers, leaflets, social network sites, TV advertisements, posters,
visible or in events (e.g. public sorting of residual waste bin, brochures, door-hangers etc. may vary in effectiveness. Bigbelly, a
demonstrating how much recyclables are still in there, etc.) platform for smart cities with a focus on waste and recycling so-
(Seyring et al., 2015). The engagement of local trusted community lutions, suggests the use of social media or a website dashboard to
groups to issue messages can strengthen their impact, help to build promote recycling programs and increase participation, share in-
neighbourhood pride and improve local area quality (Jesson et al., formation with the residents about acceptable recyclates and pro-
2014). A study from Uganda states the involvement of active vide contact information (Dillon, 2015). Ljubljana’s waste manager
environmental organizations, women’s clubs, church organi- Snaga, well aware that qualitative services and communication are
zations and other associations as necessary (Ekere et al., 2009). the foundation for user satisfaction, maintains three websites and
For areas with high cultural diversity the involvement of religious, employs the use of social media (Seyring et al., 2015).
faith and local ethnic community leaders is recommended Many cities such as Milan (Bressa, 2016) released mobile ap-
(GMWDA, n.d.). Ecological mobilization is reinforcing the plications that explain what goes where. Innovation, utilising the
perception that sorting wastes is what one ‘ought’ to do (Schwab latest technology and social media marketing techniques as well
et al., 2014). “The more people participate in recycling programs by as interactive software (e.g. app ‘Getting Wasted’ playfully testing
being a member of an ecological association, the more the country’s recycling knowledge in Manchester) is believed to encourage
population at large is likely to engage in behaviors such as sorting and recycling in a ‘new and refreshing way’ (GMWDA, 2015). Evidently a
separating domestic wastes” (Guerin et al., 2001). The involvement mixed use of media channels, capturing all levels of society and
of volunteers to demonstrate and interact on a personal level - the tailored to its recipients, is favoured (Bond and Rajaratnam, 2012).
use of an NGO as a ‘broker’ between residents and the local au- It is concluded that a continuous use of media, adjusting to progress
thority - was found to be a key element for recycling success and and audience, favours the successful establishment of a ‘recycling
habit forming (Xu et al., 2016). The recognition of the informal culture’.
sector (e.g. waste pickers) and inclusion in the MSWMS is also
recommended (Aparcana, 2017; UN-HABITAT, 2010; Wilson, 2015). 5.4.2. Targeting the household as a collective unit
Separating waste in the household environment requires inte-
5.4. Communication grating the behaviour into the everyday life of all its residents. Thus,
the overall recycling performance relies on collective household
Communication with residents is key to ensuring that they buy behaviour. Communications and messages should reflect that all
into new waste and recycling services and use them effectively household members must share the work as a ‘behavioural unit’
(Keep Britain Tidy, 2014). Persuasive Communication has been and not be reliant on one householder (Jesson et al., 2014). The
found to produce attitude/behaviour change and was already used integration of recycling in routines can add to the ‘domestic
during the 1980s to encourage recycling and ‘manipulate’ public burden’ e cooperation, negotiation and conflict amongst the
commitment (Burn and Oskamp, 1986). The framing of messages household members involved (Pettifor, 2012). While influencing
in terms of content and emotional tone significantly influence how the individual roles the household division of labour, household
they are received (Zhu, 2016). The use of humour is also recom- organisation should be educated and assisted. Jesson et al. (2014)
mended (Dri et al., 2018). A communication strategy is more likely suggest to identify the householder responsible for recycling ac-
to work if it addresses a specific audience, is worded in a language tivities and ‘functionalize’ them as an informant for the other
familiar to that audience, addresses a specific problem commonly people living with them. In this context Iyer and Kashyap (2007)
experienced by that audience, presents a solution to that problem highlight the role of gender and strongly recommend the
and is directed to specific communities (WHO, 2017). Promotional involvement of women in the promotion of recycling schemes and
recycling messages need to be customized and targeted in order to the use of women-appropriate media in order to maximize the
better link the different barriers faced by different segments of the effect of any message. On the other hand it is possible that women
population and maximize their impact. Content and message cannot ‘tell’ men to sort their wastes in some cultures (Becker,
channels should both be highly contextually specific to the infra- 2014). Ekere et al. (2009) state that campaigns should address
structure and system situation (Jesson et al., 2014) as well as both men and women due to the “complementary nature of their
culturally sensitive (GMWDA, 2015). Communication is suggested roles”.
to improve the acceptability of WM in the community. Increased Further, authorities are criticized for not distinguishing between
acceptance leads to higher participation levels in communal waste the terms “households” and “properties”; the former should be
activities which in turn improves communication as people have recognized as dynamic units ‘due to the nature of people living
the same level of understanding (Nilsson-Djerf, 1999). their lives’. Messages aimed at motivating recycling should change
Communication strategy approaches can be based on mass in- over the time of residence, concurrent with the changing reasons
formation (e.g. Television, radio, magazines and newspapers) or for households to not recycle (Timlett and Williams, 2009). To
direct information (e.g. direct mailings, informative sessions, advance influencing behaviour change, continued research is
neighbourhood billboards, distribution of calendars with collection necessary to understand collective recycling behaviour and the
schedule) (Vicente and Reis, 2008). The success of an informational division of domestic routines amongst household members (Jesson
intervention depends on the interplay among content, media, et al., 2014; Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013).
and format. Information needs to be permanently disseminated
in order to help sustain a newly learned behaviour (Iyer and 5.4.3. Reaching out to new residents
Kashyap, 2007). Additionally, it is underlined that patience is The distribution of welcome (or information) packs that detail
required until the waste collection system “takes root in society” the community’s recycling programs is recommended to engage
(Seyring et al., 2015). with new homeowners e encouraging participation and recycling
behaviour from day one in their new community (Dillon, 2015).
5.4.1. Media Explaining the system to them as an ‘induction’ is suggested (Jesson
Apart from careful framing, the right selection of communica- et al., 2014), possibly in combination with a ‘pledge’ (Bond and
tion media to address recycling is crucial to the success of any Rajaratnam, 2012).
10 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

5.4.4. Language success of any MSWMS (Ma and Hipel, 2016). The best practice to
Residents from different cultures often have difficulty relating to overcome the predominant recycling barriers (knowledge, atti-
recycling information and understanding it and require simple and tudes, perceptions) is by campaigning to raise awareness (Dri et al.,
consistent messages developed within the community (GMWDA, 2018).
n.d.; Timlett and Williams, 2009). Experience of ‘nudge’ experi-
ments suggests the use of plain language (The Economist, 2012). 5.5.1. Education and information programmes
Additionally, non-native residents need to be acknowledged Educational and informative programmes are essential to suc-
(Timlett and Williams, 2009). In order to deal with language diffi- cessfully enhance recycling (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013; Timlett
culties and to make messages graspable for areas with a high ethnic and Williams, 2009). It is expected that “providing residents with
diversity, the distribution of information in several languages information on what is recycling (declarative knowledge) and how to
(Bernstad, 2014) is recommended along with working with locally recycle (procedural knowledge) will modify their attitude toward
recruited ambassadors (5.3) and culturally appropriate media recycling and future recycling behaviours” (Iyer and Kashyap, 2007).
(GMWDA, 2015). Bernstad also mentions the uniform use of col- San Francisco states ‘education’ as the most important element for
ours and symbols. A study by Miafodzyeva (2012) pinpoints the success (Eberlein/Alternet, 2012). In Vienna, which received the
“provision of clear, understandable and easily accessible written in- “World City Closest to Sustainable Waste Management” award in
formation in ethnic languages, supported by “word-of-mouth” 2010, awareness raising/communication also played a key role
[emphasis added] information”. To improve the lack of information (Seyring et al., 2015). Public education in turn is impacted by socio-
amongst San Francisco’s residents whose first language is not En- economic factors, e.g. individual preferences regarding communi-
glish, the Department of the Environment reaches out by sending cation channels (TV, newspaper, internet) (Ma and Hipel, 2016).
staff into multicultural neighbourhoods to talk directly with resi- Thus, it is advisable to accompany each step of change or MSWMS
dents, often using pictograms and multilingual signage about how adjustment with targeted awareness campaigns to motivate users
to recycle correctly (Eberlein/Alternet, 2012). to utilise the different information channels (Jesson et al., 2014;
Seyring et al., 2015).
5.4.5. Door-Stepping In Ljubljana, intensive communication campaigns before and
The Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority recommends during the introduction of the new MSWMS are mentioned as
face to face engagement as the most effective form of communi- leaders to success; impressively, the city raised its recycling rate to
cation to change behaviour (GMWDA, n.d.). A common technique to 61% within 10 years (and recovered materials increased from 16 kg
deliver recycling messages is “door-stepping”, “a form of direct in 2004 to 145 kg per person in 2014) (Oblad, 2018). The well
marketing that involves face-to-face conversations with residents on designed and managed communication strategy was conducted in
their doorstep about their waste and recycling services” (Keep Britain cooperation with relevant stakeholders including the media, local
Tidy), based on the idea that a conversation with an individual can NGOs and the European Parliament Information Office and gained
impact household behaviour (Jesson et al., 2014). In the UK, the public support and engagement, which achieved great results and
NGO “Keep Britain Tidy” successfully delivered more than 100 even won an award in content marketing (Oblad, 2018; Seyring
door-stepping campaigns, ‘knocking on over 1.5 million doors and et al., 2015).
engaging with more than half a million residents’ (Keep Britain For information-based instruments to have any chance of suc-
Tidy, b). On suggestion of the Ecological Recycling Society (NGO) cess the Global Waste Management Outlook suggests that the
a door-to-door information campaign was also implemented in waste-related information has to be relevant to people’s daily re-
Elefsina (Greece). Whilst providing all the available information alities and concerns (Wilson, 2015). In order to shape attitudes, an
regarding recycling facilities, the citizens’ opinion regarding the emphasis on feelings (good, rewarding) or consequences (saving
performance of the MWMS was also recorded (R4R, 2014a). resources, reducing pollution etc.) is proposed (Wan et al., 2017).
Another suggestion in favour of easy, low-cost methods is to engage The households need clear “how-information” e that a recycling
with residents at the point of service delivery, possibly through the scheme exists and knowledge about what, where, when and how to
collection crew (Timlett and Williams, 2008). recycle (Iyer and Kashyap, 2007; Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). To
help eliminate confusion the use of uniform educational mate-
5.4.6. Message frequency, reminder rials across communities is suggested e even if those communities
Another important consideration is message frequency e accept different materials as recyclable (Schumaker, 2016). It
frequent interventions are needed as a reminder for consumers should be made very clear what can and cannot be placed in each
about recycling and its importance for resource conservation (Iyer bin while it is suggested to cultivate interest about how waste is
and Kashyap, 2007). In Ljubljana (Slovenia) residents can set up a managed in the general population (Seyring et al., 2015).
free SMS-reminder of the waste collection schedule, monitor One of the biggest barriers to food waste recycling detected in
collection costs and update their services (Oblad, 2018). In Austin the UK, was the residents’ attitude of “why bother?”. It highlighted
(Texas) the ‘My Schedule’ tool is used, making it possible for users the need of communicating reasons why it makes sense to recycle
to easily add their personalized collection schedule to their Google food waste as well as how the technology brings about the
or Outlook calendar (City of Austin). benefit in practice (e.g. food waste to energy). The related
Furthermore, reliable and regular collections help to embed a recommendation for communication concerns advice and reas-
habitual recycling ‘rhythm’ (Jesson et al., 2014). In Taiwan, the trash surance of the people about safe and hygienic in-house food waste
trucks play classical music so people know when to leave the house containment to overcome attitudinal barriers (Jesson et al., 2014).
and dispose of their wastes. Taipei lets users use mobile apps to
track the trucks and alert them whenever a garbage truck is nearby 5.5.2. Waste awareness and education for children
(Bakshi, 2016). One approach for new educational programs is the focus on
children education and schools; laying the grounds at an early age
5.5. Public education is supposed to encourage recycling behaviour regardless of location
(Dillon, 2015). In turn, it is suggested that children can act as am-
As previously stated (3.2.2), lack of public knowledge is widely bassadors on recycling issues in their homes, educating and
accepted as one of the most important (information) barriers to the pushing their parents to behave in the way they are taught to
 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605 11

behave (Becker, 2014; Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). In Tallinn Seattle residents who failed to comply with the regulations found
(Estonia) a great demand for environmental awareness programs their bins marked with a bright red sticker (Goodyear, 2015). In
and campaigns led to an expansion of the number of hours dedi- Chicago, haulers marked carts with an “oops tag” if they found
cated to environmental issues in school and kindergarten cur- items that can’t be recycled (Dukmasova, 2017). As practices
riculums (R4R, 2014b). In Canberra (Australia) a sustainable designed to embarrass citizens can become quite unpopular
schools initiative (AuSSIACT) along with facilitating learning op- (‘scarlet letter’, Goodyear, 2015), an approach that is simple, cheap
portunities at household recycling facilities and landfills are and uses social norms in a non-punishing manner is preferable. A
regarded as key education initiatives and included in the WM successful initiative in Nova Scotia (Canada) encouraged house-
strategy (ACT, 2011; Pickin and Randell, 2017). In Portugal, children holds who already recycled to mark their bins with a statement and
have also been identified as important targets of communication talk to their friends and neighbours about composting in order to
campaigns and are involved in recycling messages on TV and radio remove common concerns and persuade non-composters
(Vicente and Reis, 2008). The awareness campaign “Prügihunt” (Southerton et al., 2011). The ‘Golden Ticket’ initiative in Man-
(“Waste Wolf”) (City of Tallinn), which started 2003 in Tallinn and chester was very successful: recycling bins that were sorted
spread nationwide enjoyed great success. It aimed to draw atten- correctly were tagged. The tags could then be redeemed into re-
tion to the necessity and possibilities of sorting waste amongst all wards for local primary schools, which motivated the whole
demographic groups, especially targeting kindergarten, primary neighbourhood. This community-based recycling rewards
and secondary school students and educational staff. Different scheme was part of the Up and Forward project, carrying out 42
communication tools and pedagogical materials are planned innovative campaigns to demonstrate that improved communica-
annually respecting the demands of target groups and ‘lessons tion can enhance waste prevention and recycling in ‘hard to reach’
learned’ (e.g. provision of educational play cards, exercise books). communities (GMWDA, 2015). For rewards see 5.8.3.
What has been provided in schools and kindergartens, outdoor
public events and a “Waste Information Trailer”, disseminated
through TV clips and the internet (Facebook) and with the well
5.6.3. Comparative feedback
recognizable mascot “Waste Wolf” has gained popularity amongst
Providing individuals or groups with information regarding
children (KIK Environmental Investment Centre) and won several
their recycling behaviour along with a comparison to a predefined
national awards as the best environmental campaign. Factors
standard (feedback interventions) can motivate households to ‘fill
identified for success are benchmarking methods and expert
the gap’ and fulfil this standard (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017).
judgement (R4R, 2014b).
Displaying socially comparative feedback was shown to signifi-
cantly increase recycling behaviour and decrease sorting errors
5.6. Social modelling
(Dupre  and Meineri, 2016). Historical comparison with one self’s
past behaviour can be equally ‘fruitful’ (Varotto and Spagnolli,
A meta-analysis revealed social modelling and environmental
2017). It is recommended to communicate the metrics of success
alterations as the most effective basis of persuasive strategies to
(monthly and yearly recycling rates, diversion from landfills, etc.),
promote household recycling. The basic idea of social modelling is
to explain the benefits of recycling and share details about the
‘learning to imitate others’, based on Bandura’s social learning
recycling supply chain via community newspapers, a newsletter
theory (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017).
containing feedback or posts in social networks (Dillon, 2015).
Computer-based feedback systems can automatically track recy-
5.6.1. Presentation of social norms
cling activity and send current and tailored feedback on personal
As described in section 3.2.3, social influence and social pressure
mobile devices or ambient displays (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). It
can be used as a stimulus to encourage more waste reuse and
appears that feedback is most effective when repeated from time to
separation (Ekere et al., 2009). It is suggested to promote recycling
time (Nomura et al., 2011).
behaviour as a desirable social trend (Wan et al., 2017). Messages
should provide information of injunctive (i.e., social acceptable
behaviours) and descriptive (i.e., behaviours displayed by others)
norms (Wan et al., 2017). According to social-psychologist Robert 5.6.4. Neighbourhood block leaders
Cialdini, presenting social norms related to recycling is a powerful Another approach based on micro-level communication is the
influence technique to affect recycling action (Prisco/CNN, 2017). recruitment of community members as ‘block leaders’ for model
People would have such a strong conformity desire that they are recycling behaviour and to inform and convince non-recycling
more likely to change their ways if they think their neighbours neighbours. This is suggested as being more effective than solely
are doing the same. He emphasizes that the effectiveness of a providing information (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). As an illus-
message can be improved significantly by simply framing it tration: Xu et al. (2016) recruited volunteer advisers to stand beside
differently (Griffiths, 2007). Replacing standard ecological mes- the waste stations every morning and evening and support resident
sages with social norms increased recycling in Arizona: In TV ad- recycling by physical demonstration and explanation ‘in a positive
verts people who were already recycling spoke favourably of it and friendly way’. Becker (2014) suggests employing recycling
while derogating another (non-recycling) person. In another ambassadors within strong social groups (families, immigrant
experiment, Cialdini persuaded hotel guests to reuse their towels clusters, students in housing); they would have a broad range of
with a notice saying that most people who previously stayed in that influence. She also mentions retired people as an appropriate group
room had reused them (rate rose by 26%) (Prisco/CNN, 2017). to work with. Other names used for such advisers are “Eco Patrol”,
Applied to waste sorting, this may also work in the context of new “Recycling Ambassadors” and “Zero Waste Agents”. Block leaders
home owners. may support door-stepping campaigns (Dai et al., 2015). In Man-
chester, an ambassador campaign was used to especially target
5.6.2. Social punishment ‘hard to reach’ apartment blocks (GMWDA, n.d.). Particularly for
Another way of enforcing ‘good’ behaviour is using shame: a areas with little visibility, working with agencies such as housing
common strategy for jurisdictions is using stickers: visible to associations and home care support is recommended to help peo-
neighbours and thereby causing social pressure. For instance, in ple adapt a routine behavioural pattern (Jesson et al., 2014).
12 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

5.7. Environmental alterations The smaller bin-size acts as a visual sign when something is dis-
carded. In Edinburgh the introduction of smaller refuse bins
Citing ‘psychology of recycling’ expert Jessica Nolan: “Obviously ‘boosted recycling rates by 85%’ (Edinburgh News, 2015). Zero
if the infrastructure is not there, you can’t expect people to participate Waste Scotland suggests this as a ‘nudge marketing’ approach: the
in a program that doesn’t exist” (Schumaker, 2016). Environmental size difference would provide a degree of ‘choice editing’ where
alterations are interventions making recycling easier and more recycling looks more important and also accessible (Gulland, 2015).
convenient by modifying the physical environment, e.g. adding In many cities residents can decide which size of garbage bin fits
bins in proximity, changing their appearance or provision of home their needs best. Combined with Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)
sorting equipment (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). As best practice in schemes (5.8.1), this is a “the smaller the bin, the less you pay”
Vienna, making the container location easily accessible while initiative.
keeping them new, clean and well labelled was advocated (Seyring
et al., 2015). Furthermore, addressing typical practical concerns 5.7.4. Design and labelling
(such as unpleasant odours or bag breaking) with improved bin Ultimately, the visual (smart) design of collection points is
design can increase the proportion of sorting households. As crucial to positively influence convenience (Dolan et al., 2010;
shown in Catalonia, a higher satisfaction of source-separation can Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013). Simple changes such as colour and
be achieved by bringing aerated bins for the storage of organic the shape of the hole - specialized recycling container lids - can
household wastes into use (Puyuelo et al., 2013). dramatically increase recycling behaviours (Duffy and Verges,
2009). Vienna suggests a professional (corporate) design for easy
5.7.1. Collection scheme identification and recognition (Seyring et al., 2015). To make it
Door-to-door collection systems are a recognized best practice easier for the recycler, it is recommended to have one single image
to improve recycling behaviour and result in the highest capture (sticker, etc.) for a given material that is then used everywhere
rates of recyclables (R4R, 2014a; Seyring et al., 2015). (Schumaker, 2016). The labelling of ‘landfill’ instead of ‘trash’ or
The introduction of door-to-door collection was key factor for ‘waste’ is used as a ‘nudge’ reminder to keep recyclables out of the
Ljubljana’s sharp increase in recycling rates, especially ascribed to garbage (Buechler, 2011; Szaky, 2014). Labels designed with yes/no
separately collecting biodegradable wastes (Seyring et al., 2015). In instructions including images of both the items that can be thrown
Chennai (India) door-to-door collection and source segregation into the bin and which cannot have also proven success (Veolia;
were successfully promoted by cooperating with the local author- Hock, 2009). Indeed, this seems to be the best practice to ensure
ities and WM staff. Households are required to separate all recy- correct separation and handling the confusing problem of different
clable materials and can then give them away to waste pickers MSWMS accepting and refusing different materials. Optimally, the
(Kurian, 2006). recycling-information is provided on the products themselves (Dri
In contrast some householders prefer “bring sites” (‘micro et al., 2018). The ‘Green Dot’ label for packaging, originally from
recycling centres’), mainly due to absence of space for large con- Germany and now active in 28 countries, informs the consumers
tainers in kitchens, backyards etc. Practical recommendations directly about the producer’s involvement in an official recovery
include long opening hours and provision of small containers for scheme (Wilson, 2015) and is seen as one of the key success factors
pre-separation (Williams and Taylor, 2004). A convenient location for building the ‘recycling culture’ among the public in Germany
for such ‘bring banks’ are supermarkets, eliminating special trips (Brassaw, 2017). The legal implementation of ‘extended producer
for recycling (Jesson et al., 2014). Strategically located collection responsibility’ strongly supports this (Becker, 2014; EC, 2015;
points, accessible to both the recycling company and within Zaman and Lehmann, 2011).
walking distance to residential units, are also recommended for
typical townhouses in Equestria (South Africa), where curbside 5.8. Economic incentives
collection is difficult. Design and location should support the
maximisation of accessibility and visibility to non-recyclers in or- The effort taken to conduct recycling activities is voluntary in
der to establish a communal recycling practice (du Toit et al., 2017). most municipalities and without the implementation of economic
incentives, provides little reward. Aligned with the utility-
5.7.2. Provision of bins maximisation approach (3.3), recycling behaviour can be regu-
In the UK, recycling rates increased significantly when the lated by an “adequate manipulation of rewards and punishments
appropriate waste infrastructure was installed through the provi- [emphasis added]” (Miafodzyeva, 2012). Serving as external moti-
sion of recycling bins/boxes and curb-side collection facilities vators, monetary incentives can be positive and negative (disin-
(Southerton et al., 2011). Similar success was reported in Toronto, centive, e.g. tax) (Iyer and Kashyap, 2007). Financial rewards are
where building managers received free resources for distribution very popular among the public, while penalties seem less politically
to residents that fit under the kitchen sink (Bond and Rajaratnam, acceptable (Defra, 2007; Li et al., 2017; Widdowson et al., 2014; Yau,
2012). 2012). On the other hand, economic incentives are expected to
The installation of hangers for food waste collection in each result in less persistent changes than those coming from
household kitchen in a Swedish residential area not only improved information-based intervention programs (Iyer and Kashyap,
the convenience for separation but also gave residents the strong 2007).
indication that everybody in the area should separate e the social
norm of separating food wastes was enforced by the property 5.8.1. Fee system: Pay-As-You-Throw
owner (Bernstad, 2014). Such interventions in material infrastruc- One strategy is the implementation of fee systems where the
ture can create the conditions for new habits to emerge and have costs for WM are allocated according to amount of waste generated
the potential to ‘lock people into sustained environmentally (Reichenbach, 2008). While curb-side programs reduce the
friendly behaviours’ (Southerton et al., 2011). household’s perceived cost of recycling (commonly financed via
general tax/flat fees), unit pricing poses a price on the disposal of
5.7.3. Recycling-bin-to-garbage-bin ratio different waste streams (i.e. higher fees for not recycling) (Jenkins
Another practice in order to encourage recycling behaviour is et al., 2003). Commonly termed “Pay-as-you-throw”(PAYT), this
reducing the size of refuse bins in comparison to the recycling bins. financial incentive increases recycling activity coupled with efforts
 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605 13

to minimise overall waste production (Reichenbach, 2008). On 5.8.3. Positive rewards

average, cities applying PAYT have better collection rates than Varotto and Spagnolli (2017) refer to incentives as ‘any kind of
others (Seyring et al., 2015). In San Jose (California), a ‘nationally benefit’ the resident receives for participating in the recycling
recognized leader in waste management’, the first year of PAYT program, mentioning monetary rewards, refund and unit pricing
produced an increase of recyclables by 149% (US EPA). The payment programs, gifts, prizes, lottery tickets and discount coupons. It ap-
scheme can be volume-or weight-based; the local authorities pears that in areas where recycling is an already established prac-
should examine which solution matches best with the local con- tice, the incentives have to be more ‘profitable’ for the householder
ditions. Finding a good and fair combination of fixed and variable (Widdowson et al., 2014; Woodard et al., 2000).
fee components and ensuring accountability is crucial for house-
hold acceptance and long-term success (Reichenbach, 2008). Fee 5.8.3.1. Deposit refund systems. One way to facilitate recycling of
systems that allow households ‘to save money’ by better sorting are certain packages (especially refillable beverage containers) and
considered to be more encouraging than flat rate or top-up systems. delivering the purest material fractions (Seyring et al., 2015) as well
It’s suggested to select a relatively high basic fee and subsequently as achieving high collection rates are mandatory deposit-refund
decreasing it depending upon a reduction in collection frequency or systems. Lessons from Sweden show their effectiveness depends
residuals (Seyring et al., 2015). Not charging at all or connecting the on (1) density of return sites, (2) deposit size and (3) efforts and
waste fee to other services is regarded as discouraging participation time put to raise awareness. In order to increase return rate the
(Seyring et al., 2015). deposit size was adjusted several times (Miliute and Plepys, 2009).
San Francisco’s waste collector Recology introduced the
“Fantastic Three” (waste streams) in 1999 (Bradford et al., 2018) and
has since then given vast financial incentives to residents who 5.8.3.2. Vouchers. A more innovative incentive to boost recycling
voluntarily reduce the size of their bins or pick-up-frequency (SF behaviour e in line with before-mentioned “nudge” theory - is a
Environment). Within months, the diversion rate for participating “recycling bank” program. Recyclebank is an educational platform,
businesses and residents increased by more than 90 percent rewarding residents for their recycling efforts with vouchers which
(Eberlein, 2012). Fees for trash are about 10 times higher than those they can exchange at local businesses or online (Evans, 2016). It
for recycling and compostables (Heinrich, 2017). Cities like Ljubl- proved to be successful when tested in large cities such as London
jana and Budapest set fees on residual waste (which fund the and Philadelphia (GAO, 2006; Widdowson et al., 2014). A similar
collection) and provide the service of collection of recyclables approach to help residents separate their waste is followed by De
without user charges in order to incentivise separation (Seyring Gezonde Stad (“Healthy City”) in Amsterdam by opening an
et al., 2015). In Vienna, a volume-based fee on residual wastes accessible and welcoming ‘Zero Waste Lab’. Fostering a strong
and emptying frequency in combination with free of charge neighbourhood community, residents can hand in their separated
disposal via door-to-door and ‘bring points’ collection is successful waste and get value coins in return which they can spend in local
(Seyring et al., 2015). Contarina (WM company in Veneto, Italy), shops of cooperating entrepreneurs in the same area (Amsterdam
having reached source separation levels of up to 85%, splits its fee Smart City, 2016). Another original and very successful initiative
into a fixed (depending on members living in household) and to recover recyclable materials was launched in Mexico City: the
variable part. The latter is calculated with a penalizing variable Mercado de Trueque (Barter Market) pops up every month across
(times non-recyclables collected) and a bonus variable (30% the capital and residents can exchange recyclables for “puntos
reduction for home-composting) (Simon, 2018). In Seoul (South verdes” (green points), which then can be used at the nearby
Korea), a Radio Frequency Identification System with incorporated farmers markets (simultaneously incentivising people to buy fresh
personal ID cards is used to charge residents for the amount of food local food) (Clasper, 2016). In a study conducted by Li et al. (2017) in
they discard (Chrobog, 2015). Although the system is very suc- Nanjing, household separation results were displayed on large
cessful, it is found that the effects of the volume-based waste fee posters near the bins and the number of “green points” each
system in Korea are only temporarily and inherit the risk of illegal apartment received. Best households were denoted with red text.
dumping (Park, 2018; Park and Lah, 2015). This is also a major Residents could exchange their points for eggs, dish washing
concern regarding variable charging systems (Ma et al., 2018). detergent and other services (e.g. sharpening knives). It was
Representatives of Vienna suggest to ‘keep the fee system simple, observed that residents really cared about the number of eggs they
traceable and flexible’, mentioning that for example one call should got and “talked numbers” with each other, resulting in non-sorters
be enough to reduce bin volume (Seyring et al., 2015). interest in eggs.
SUEZ’s external affairs director Gev Edulje states: “Paying less for While some psychologists suggest that rewards needn’t be
disposing of less, coupled with well-designed service arrangements personal and information about benefits of recycling for the com-
and a properly funded householder engagement programme, has been munity would be enough (Schumaker, 2016), others state that
universally recognized as a potent, cost-effective package of measures individual-based incentives are more effective than those
for raising recycling performance.” (Eduljee, 2016). rewarding a group-performance (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017).
It appears that the most successful reward incentives involve
5.8.2. Fines schools and community groups (Defra, 2007).
The reverse strategy is to ‘punish’ recycling-unfriendly behav-
iour. While cities such as San Francisco (Schumaker, 2016; Wollan, 6. Good practices for compact cities
2009), Seattle (Goodyear, 2015), Vancouver (Capps, 2015) and
Woodbury (City of Woodbury) effectively penalize residents and According to George Monbiot sustainable cities must be
building owners for not separating their trash properly with fines, compact and high-density and need strict urban planning in order
policy violations in some areas of Taiwan can additionally be met to not collapse (Monbiot, 2011). Clearly, effective WM and resource
with public humiliation. Video cameras have been installed to catch recovery are crucial (Fell, 2012). A variety of definitions for ‘compact
violators and the footage published after the second violation with city’ are in use, but the concept of urban planning generally refers to
the offender’s face blurred out. Sometimes half of the collected cities with contiguous development patterns, high density areas of
fines are offered to citizens who help the authorities catch those housing and population with mass-transit linkages and accessi-
who don’t separate their trash (Bakshi, 2016). bility to diverse local services and jobs (Matsumoto, 2011).
14 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

6.1. The problematic of household recycling in compact cities services for all residents, it is already common practice to make it
mandatory for building holders.
While high population density is regarded as a key factor for the In San Francisco, owners are fined if they fail to provide their
‘viability’ of recycling programs and curb-side collection (Saphores tenants with the adequate bins and information on how to use them
et al., 2006), policies to concentrate population appear to conflict (SF Environment). In Chicago, a city ordinance mandates property
with the aim to increase recycling rates in urban areas (Timlett and owners of multi-tenant or high-density buildings to contract private
Williams, 2009). companies for the provision of source-separated recycling services
Urban households - especially flats (Timlett and Williams, 2008) and educate their tenants (if not complied, penalized) (City of
- are found to separate less than those in more rural areas (Ekere Chicago, 2016). Employing a complicated network of private waste
et al., 2009; Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013). With increasing pop- managers with many different education approaches and recycling
ulation density recycling decreases (Hage et al., 2009). Several of the rules results in the city suffering from uneven implementation
afore-mentioned social factors become intrinsically significant in (Dukmasova, 2017). Vienna ‘learned its lesson’ and recommends
high-density urban areas. As housing density increases, it is antici- keeping the waste collection system completely in municipal
pated that issues of reduced convenience, less visibility and nor- ownership: it would be much easier to appropriately respond to
malised behaviour become more notable with higher population criticism, develop a successful overall communication strategy (e.g.
flux, less affluent population etc. (Timlett and Williams, 2009). corporate bin design) and avoid loss of public image (caused by
“Transience, high social mobility, social dis-engagement with ‘place’ other companies) (Seyring et al., 2015). On the contrary, privatisa-
and busy lifestyles are common features of both flat dwellers and young tion changed the system towards a stronger focus on service and
people and these factors combining with the un-promising physical communication in Dublin. The WM companies take special care to
infrastructure of flats conspire to bring together a raft of barriers in one obtain clear waste fractions (economic interest), while engaging a
setting” (Jesson et al., 2014). The interrelation between building type, collection company forces the households to take interest in how
form of tenancy and associated lifestyles and situations combined their waste is managed (Seyring et al., 2015).
with infrastructural, systemic and knowledge barriers make the
encouragement and organisation of separate collection in multi- 6.2.2. Dealing with small storage space
store houses especially challenging (Jesson et al., 2014; Seyring While general suggestions include the broad promotion of how
et al., 2015). One major reason for low collection rates in compact recycling works in apartment buildings (City of Melbourne, 2014), it
cities is the growing scarcity of appropriate space for temporary is highlighted that “those living in high density housing need to know
storage (Jenkins et al., 2003; Timlett and Williams, 2009). Another what they can do to maximize the limited space that is available for
significant issue in urban areas is greater population transience. them to recycle” (GMWDA, n.d.). Further, it’s recommended to
Global population mobility and migration create “highly diverse, address issues associated with infrastructure and convenience,
multi-cultural environments” (Jesson et al., 2014). Therefore, which are most probably the barriers to participate in recycling
Miafodzyeva (2012) highlights the necessity of understanding the (Timlett and Williams, 2009). Solutions to deal with minimal
recycling participation of different ethnic groups and the support storage space in the home or in external areas “must be tailored to
of multicultural householders which make up a large part of the existing exigencies of the built environment” and “need to include
population in major cities. Moreover, people are intrinsically mobile broader infrastructural factors such as functioning lifts and conve-
and live only temporarily in different places, often having estab- nient, safe storage facilities” (Timlett and Williams, 2009). As the
lished a recycling routine in their country of origin and are likely to uncontrolled use of bins can become problematic in high-density
be familiar with the local MSWMS (Jesson et al., 2014). areas, bin security should also be taken into account (Bond and
Rajaratnam, 2012).
6.2. Considerations for high-density areas
6.2.3. Tailor solutions to type of building
Considerations for improving waste separation in high-density It was shown that barriers to separation at source are very
areas are suggested to include social, architectural, technological, context-specific. Therefore the provided recycling service and
infrastructural and organisational factors (Timlett and Williams, communication campaigns should be designed on a situation-
2009). specific basis, tailored to different types of property whilst taking
the social circumstances and lifestyles of people living in them into
6.2.1. Working with property owners, architects and private waste account (Jesson et al., 2014; Timlett and Williams, 2011, 2009,
managers 2008).
In order to deliver well-focused and scheduled communication Regarding the diversity of ‘flats’ in urban areas and associated
campaigns to residents, it is suggested to work with information specific barriers, a typology of 12 distinct types was developed in
from council tax or local estate agents (Timlett and Williams, 2009). order to tailor the WM service to each category (Jesson et al., 2014).
The High Rise Recycling Project (2014), Melbourne, recommends Additionally, it’s suggested to “develop a standard suite of educa-
promoting available programs to owners corporations, facility and tional and infrastructure items, where the selection of items can be
building managers and directly to apartment owners. Training tailored for each building” (City of Melbourne, 2014).
them can ensure the correct passing-down of recycling knowledge As an example for the work with given situations: Typical
(GMWDA, 2015). In general, convenient WM practices and infra- buildings in Milan have courtyards for the storage of bins and
structure should be implemented from the beginning, addressing concierge services and new buildings are required to allocate spe-
outlined problems at the design stage with realistic and innovative cific place for bins. While operative staff fines contamination, “the
sustainable solutions (Timlett and Williams, 2009). It is proposed to main checking mechanism is really the social control that is exercised
publish clear urban planning and design guidelines regarding the by neighbours within the block and the concierge inspecting the bins
involvement of recycling facilities in new-build properties within before setting out the bins” (Eminton, 2016).
the legal framework of WM (du Toit et al., 2017; Timlett and In Sweden, convenience may be increased by the situation of a
Williams, 2009). This necessarily involves the attention of plan- recycling room in the basement of an apartment building or in the
ners and architects who are involved in the (re-)design of settle- yard behind several buildings (Miafodzyeva, 2012). In Singapore’s
ments and housing complexes. To assure proper access to recycling high-rise buildings, rubbish chutes are installed, which require
 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605 15

other approaches such as implementing a pay-per-opening system with native researchers and institutions could deliver these. Sec-
for common central refuse chutes, using radio frequency identifi- ondly, more studies are needed on collective household behaviour
cation tags (Boh, 2016). San Francisco overcame the ‘chute-chal- (5.4.2) and the motivation of recycling in rapidly changing urban
lenge’ of multi-unit buildings by requiring new buildings to install areas that lack the visibility of sorting or have a low sense of com-
three chutes (or diverter system) and old single-chute-buildings to munity (6.1). Thirdly, it would be valuable to identify the factors that
place recycling containers next to each chute or block them off and influence the growing number of people that is practicing a mobile
provide the three required recycling bins somewhere else (Heinrich, lifestyle (e.g. short-term residents, long-time-travellers) and which
2017). The Hong Kong Government made the provision of refuse are confronted with ever-changing recycling systems in different
storage and material recovery rooms on every domestic floor countries, cities and buildings. This issue, mentioned in section
compulsory, which is considered to be an example for ineffective 3.2.2, could be addressed with a comparative study of recycling
policy caused by unrealistic assumptions and lack of inclusive public systems from the household recycler’s perspective (incl. colour
consultation (Yau, 2012). The study reaffirmed the need for envi- schemes, accepted materials) and deliver useful results in order to
ronmental education and financial incentives. A study of recycling in reduce barriers to recycling and develop a less complex, standard-
high density dwellings by Bond and Rajaratnam (2012) reviews the ized system. Finally, with regard to the current demographic trends,
advantages and issues of door-to-door, bring sites, chute and floor- future studies should focus in particular on waste separation
by-floor systems in detail, for which is no space here. behaviour and the adaptation of the technical environment in sky-
Once again, the essentiality of a mixed-methods approach to scrapers and apartment buildings in different urban areas.
promote domestic waste separation was demonstrated, in high-rise The present results are relevant in the field of sustainability
cities just as in all other contexts. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ research and contribute to the understanding of the international
solution e every building has different managers, measures of and transdisciplinary challenge of household waste separation
storage space and diverse residents with varying motivations. Apart behaviour. The information provided ensures that newcomers to
from the need for public education the property owners, tenants the subject as well as specialists receive new and in-depth insights.
and waste managers have to work together and come up with a The work presents many approaches for the development of
plan for each building. practicable solutions, but is supposed to serve solely as a basis for
context-specific investigations. Equally to the waste challenges
7. Conclusions and outlook faced, the presented variety of recommendations from and for
cities across the globe highlights the potential of collaboration and
The purpose of this literature review is to support WM practi- learning from one another’s experiences and practical insights. A
tioners and policy makers from different backgrounds in the un- dialogue on best practices among practitioners worldwide is
derstanding and motivation of household waste separation necessary of which everybody can benefit.
behaviour. The research emphasizes the relevance and consider-
ation of its underlying social factors when it comes to the successful Acknowledgements
implementation of MSWMS. Targeted communication and educa-
tional programmes that involve the community and present sorting The advice of Adriana Artola Casacuberta during the research and
wastes as a social norm are crucial for the establishment of a writing of this paper is gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to
‘recycling culture’. Accompanied by environmental alterations and thank Peter Taylor for proof reading the article and my anonymous
economic incentives, the effort taken by households should be reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
acknowledged and recycling made as convenient as possible. As This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
social factors are influenced to a large extent by the given external agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
conditions, tailoring the system to the given local infrastructure
arises as a very important remark, especially for high-density areas References
and buildings. The compilation of interdependent influences on the
recycling performance of urban areas highlights the need for sound ACT, 2011. ACT Waste Management Strategy, towards a Sustainable Canberra.
Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government, Environment and Sustainable
planning and carefully designed behaviour change strategies. It is
Development. Available at: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/
demonstrated that social behaviour and barriers to recycling can pdf_file/0007/576916/ACT-Waste-Strategy-Policy_access.pdf [last accessed June
differ tremendously between urban areas. They have to be inves- 17, 2018].
tigated in depth before the implementation of new interventions Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Orgnizational Behav. Hum. Decis.
Process. 50, 179e211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
and systems e then tested and monitored. Clearly there is not one Amsterdam Smart City, 2016. De Gezonde Stad (the Healthy City) opens first Zero
applicable solution that guarantees successful behaviour change. A Waste Lab in the Netherlands: a neighbourhood lab for social & circular
synthesis of demographic, situational, psychological, financial and innovation. Available at: https://amsterdamsmartcity.com/projects/eerste-zero-
waste-lab-in-nederland [last accessed June 17, 2018].
legal approaches has to be brought in balance to suit the local Ando, A.W., Gosselin, A.Y., 2005. Recycling IN multifamily dwellings: does conve-
context. Systems that are sensitive to cultural peculiarities and nience matter? Econ. Inq. 43, 426e438. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/cbi029.
adjust to the needs of its users over time are more effective in Aparcana, S., 2017. Approaches to formalization of the informal waste sector into
municipal solid waste management systems in low- and middle-income
encouraging and maintaining household recycling behaviour in the countries: review of barriers and success factors. Waste Manag. 61, 593e607.
long term. Along with this, further research is necessary. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.028.
The review revealed several shortcomings and gaps, which can Assises Nationales Des De chets. Waste recycling in Austria: analysis of the success.
Available at: http://assises-dechets.org/en/interviews/201-waste-recycling-in-
serve as inspiration for future research. First, the published litera- austria-analysis-of-the-success-nikolaus-berlakovich [last accessed June 17,
ture on social factors influencing household separation behaviour 2018].
from South America and Africa is highly underrepresented to non- Bakshi, G., May 19, 2016. Taiwan has one of the world’s most efficient recycling
systems. Available at: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/taiwan-musical-
existent. Future studies could identify the most influential social
garbage-trucks-recycling/ [last accessed June 17, 2018].
factors and the most effective policy instruments for successful Bandura, A., 1971. Social Learning Theory. General Learning Corporation, New York.
recycling schemes in high-density African and South American cities Available at: https://cogs.sitehost.iu.edu/spackled/2012readings/bandura.pdf
(e.g. Cairo, Mexico City) and ideally compare them with Western/ [last accessed June 17, 2018].
Barr, S., 2007. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environ.
European results. Following the urbanization trend, these results Behav. 39, 435e473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505283421.
could be of tremendous importance. Multi-lingual collaboration Barr, S., Gilg, A.W., Ford, N.J., 2001. Differences between household waste reduction,
16 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

reuse and recycling behaviour: a study of reported behaviours, intentions and pdf/infosheet01.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018].
explanatory variables. Environ. Waste Manag. 4, 69e82. Available at: http:// Defra, 2006. Helping People Make Better Choices. UK Department for Environment,
projects.exeter.ac.uk/ebrg/barr.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)/Sustainable Development Unit. Available at:
Becker, N., 2014. Increasing High Recycling Rates, Socio-Demographics as an http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/uk-strategy/
Additional Layer of Information to Improve Waste Management. Lunds uni- documents/Chap2.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018].
versitet Internationella miljo € institutet (IIIEE). Defra, 2007. Waste Strategy for England 2007. UK Department for Environment,
Berglund, C., 2006. The assessment of households’ recycling costs: the role of Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/
personal motives. Ecol. Econ. 56, 560e569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. waste/strategy/strategy07/documents/waste07-strategy.pdf [last accessed June
2005.03.005. 17, 2018].
Bernstad, A., 2014. Household food waste separation behavior and the importance Dillon, L., January 7, 2015. 14 Ways to Improve Community Recycling Rates. Available
of convenience. Waste Manag. 34, 1317e1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/ at: http://blog.bigbelly.com/14-ways-to-improve-community-recycling-rates
j.wasman.2014.03.013. [last accessed June 17, 2018].
Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., Aspegren, A., 2013. Door-stepping as a strategy for Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Vlaev, I., 2010. MINDSPACE: Influ-
improved food waste recycling behaviour-Evaluation of a full-scale experiment. encing Behaviour through Public Policy. Institute for Government and the
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 73, 94e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012. Cabinet Office. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/
12.012. default/files/publications/MINDSPACE.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018].
Boh, S., June 30,2016. Sorting out the recycling blues of Singapore. Available at: Dri, M., Canfora, P., Antonopoulos, I.S., Gaudillat, G., 2018. Best Environmental
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/sorting-out-the-recycling-blues-of- Management Practice for the Waste Management Sector. JRC SCIENCE FOR
singapore [last accessed June 17, 2018]. POLICY REPORT. European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/50247.
Bond, V., Rajaratnam, T., 2012. Assessment of Options for the Provision of Waste du Toit, J., Wagner, C., Fletcher, L., 2017. Socio-spatial factors affecting household
Infrastructure and Procurement Services - Recycling in High Density Residential recycling in townhouses in Pretoria, South Africa. Sustainability 9. https://
Buildings. Hyder Consulting, Sydney. Available at: https://www.environment. doi.org/10.3390/su9112033.
act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/576919/ACT_MUD_Report_FINAL_21_ Duffy, S., Verges, M., 2009. It matters a hole lot. Environ. Behav. 41, 741e749. https://
Feb_2012.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018]. doi.org/10.1177/0013916508323737.
Bozhikin, I., Gechev, R., Dentchev, N.A., 2017. Environmental fiscal policy and other Dukmasova, M., July 13, 2017. The truth about what happens when you recycle the
instruments for sustainable and efficient municipal solid waste management: a wrong stuff in Chicago. Available at: https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/
comparative study of Belgium and Bulgaria. Waste Manag. 65 https://doi.org/ archives/2017/07/13/the-truth-about-what-happens-when-you-recycle-the-
10.1016/S0956-053X(17)30390-2. wrong-stuff-in-chicago [last accessed June 17, 2018].
Bradford, A., Broude, S., Truelove, A., 2018. Trash in America. Moving from destructive Dupre , M., Meineri, S., 2016. Increasing recycling through displaying feedback and
consumption to a zero-waste system. TexPIRG. Available at: https:// social comparative feedback. J. Environ. Psychol. 48, 101e107. https://doi.org/
uspirgedfund.org/reports/usf/trash-america [last accessed June 17, 2018]. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.004.
Brassaw, B., July 11, 2017. Germany: a recycling program that actually works. Eberlein, S. /Alternet, April 18, 2012. Where No City Has Gone Before: San Francisco
Available at: https://earth911.com/business-policy/recycling-in-germany/ [last Will Be World’s First Zero-Waste Town by 2020. Available at: https://
accessed June 17, 2018]. sfenvironment.org/news/where-no-city-has-gone-before-san-francisco-will-
Bressa, R., September 15, 2016. Recycling, Milan is one of the best cities in Europe be-worlds-first-zerowaste-town-by-2020 [last accessed June 17, 2018].
for garbage disposal. Available at: https://www.lifegate.com/people/news/ EC, 2015. Closing the Loop - An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, 2015 COM
recycling-milan-europe [last accessed June 17, 2018]. (2015) 614 final. European Commission (EC), Brussels/BE. Available at: https://
Brook Lyndhurst, 2007. Establishing the Behaviour Change Evidence Base to Inform eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614.
Community- Based Waste Prevention and Recycling. Brook Lyndhurst. Edinburgh News, January 5, 2015. Edinburgh recycling rates soar 85 per cent.
Buechler, M., September 13, 2011. The landfill nudge at the University of Pennsyl- Available at: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/edinburgh-
vania. Available at: http://nudges.org/tag/recycling/ [last accessed June 17, recycling-rates-soar-85-per-cent-1-3650917 [last accessed June 17, 2018].
2018]. Eduljee, G., June 1, 2016. Have Recycling Rewards Scheme Had Their Chips? Avail-
Burn, S.M., Oskamp, S., 1986. Increasing Community Recycling with Persuasive able at: https://www.circularonline.co.uk/opinions/recycling-rewards-scheme-
Communication and Public Commitment. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16, 29e41. chips/ [last accessed June 17, 2018].
Capps, K., January 14, 2015. Every City Needs Vancouver's Ban on Food Scraps. Available Ekere, W., Mugisha, J., Drake, L., 2009. Factors influencing waste separation and
at: https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/01/every-city-needsvancouvers-ban- utilization among households in the Lake Victoria crescent, Uganda. Waste
on-food-scraps/384391/ [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Manag. 29, 3047e3051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.08.001.
Chrobog, K., November 12, 2015. South Korea: Cutting Back on Food Waste. Avail- Eminton, S., December 12, 2016. Milan e lessons from a large city. Available at:
able at: http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/south-korea-cutting-back-food- https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/milan-lessons-from-a-large-
waste [last accessed June 17, 2018]. city/ [last accessed June 17, 2018].
City of Austin. Available at: http://www.austintexas.gov/department/single-stream- EU, 2008. Waste Framework Directive. Directive 2008/98. The European Parliament
recycling [last accessed June 17, 2018]. and the Council of the European Union (EU). Available at: http://data.europa.eu/
City of Chicago, 2016. The Chicago Recycling Ordinance. Chapter 11-5 of the Chicago eli/dir/2008/98/oj.
Municipal Code. A Guide to Commercial, Retail, and Multi-Unit Residential Evans, L., October 25, 2016. As cities shift strategies, so does Recyclebank.
Recycling in the City of Chicago. Available at: https://www.recyclebycity.com/ Available at: https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2016/10/25/as-cities-shift-
downloads/commerical_ordinance.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018]. strategies-so-does-recyclebank/ [last accessed June 17, 2018].
City of Melbourne, 2014. High Rise Recycling Project. Available at: https://www.mwrrg. Fell, D., for the Guardian Professional Network, May 8, 2012. Why waste is still a
vic.gov.au/assets/resource-files/High-Rise-MF-R1-Final-Report-Melbourne.pdf built environment concern for sustainable cities. Available at: https://www.
[last accessed June 17, 2018]. theguardian.com/sustainable-business/waste-built-environment-sustainable-
City of Tallinn: Prügihunt. Available at: https://www.tallinn.ee/prygihunt/ [last cities [last accessed June 17, 2018].
accessed June 17, 2018]. GAO, 2006. Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling. United States
City of Woodbury, Trash & Recycling. Available at: http://www.woodbury.nj.us/city- Government Accountability Office (GAO). Available at: https://www.gao.gov/
departments/publicworks-department/trash-recycling [last accessed June 17, products/GAO-07-37.
2018]. Garnett, K., Cooper, T., 2014. Effective dialogue: enhanced public engagement as a
Clasper, J., April 25, 2016. ’Trash for food’: the Mexico City market that’s tackling the legitimising tool for municipal waste management decision-making. Waste
capital’s waste problem. Available at: https://www.virgin.com/virgin-unite/ Manag. 34, 2709e2726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.08.011.
trash-food-mexico-city-market-thats-tackling-capitals-waste-problem [last GMWDA, n.d. LIFEþ up and Forward Project: Handbook, A Six Step Approach
accessed June 17, 2018]. -Processes for Targeting Waste Communication in Low Performing Urban Areas.
Connett, P., 2013. The Zero Waste Solution: Untrashing the Planet One Community Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA), Manchester. Available
at a Time. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont. at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?
Dabitch, November 3, 2014. Pantamera - Idol 2014 Hit Song - (2014) 3:00 (Sweden). fuseaction=home.showFile&rep¼file&fil¼UP-FORWARD-COMS_Handbook_
Available at: https://adland.tv/commercials/pantamera-idol-2014-hit-song- Six_Step_Approach_EN.pdf.
2014-300-sweden [last accessed June 17, 2018]. GMWDA, 2015. Up and Forward Project Review Document. Available at: http://ec.
Dai, Y.C., Gordon, M.P.R., Ye, J.Y., Xu, D.Y., Lin, Z.Y., Robinson, N.K.L., Woodard, R., europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.
Harder, M.K., 2015. Why doorstepping can increase household waste recycling. showFile&rep¼file&fil¼LIFE11_ENV_UK_000389_LAYMAN.pdf.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102, 9e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06. Goodyear, S./The Atlantic CityLab. A brief history of household recycling. Available
004. at: https://www.citylab.com/city-makers-connections/recycling/ [last accessed
Defra, 2005a. A Practice Guide for the Development of Municipal Waste Manage- June 17, 2018].
ment Strategies. UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Goodyear, S., January 28, 2015. Seattle tries shaming its citizens into participating in
(Defra). Available at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/localauth/practice- composting. Available at: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/01/seattle-
guidance/pdf/practice-guide.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018]. tries-shaming-its-citizens-into-participating-in-composting/384894/ [last
Defra, 2005b. Involving Communities and Stakeholders, Information Sheet 1. In: A accessed June 17, 2018].
Practice Guide for the Development of Municipal Waste Management Strate- Greenfield, D., 2016. Report for the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) and
gies. UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Available the Greater London Authority (GLA) INTERNATIONAL RECYCLING RATE COM-
at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/localauth/practice-guidance/ PARISON PROJECT. LWARB/SOENECS. Available at: https://www.lwarb.gov.uk/
 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605 17

wp-content/uploads/2016/09/LWARB-International-recycling-rate-comparison. on household waste recycling: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 48,
pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018]. 357e395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.09.005.
Griffiths, P., November 15, 2007. Boost recycling? Try a little persuasion. Available Matsumoto, T., 2011. Compact city policies: a comparative assessment. 47th ISO-
at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-persuasion/boost-recycling-try- CARP Congress 2011. Available at: http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/
a-little-persuasion-idUSL1568112420071115 [last accessed June 17, 2018]. 2028.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018].
Guerin, D., Crete, J., Mercier, J., 2001. A multilevel analysis of the determinants of Matthies, E., Selge, S., Klo €ckner, C.A., 2012. The role of parental behaviour for the
recycling behavior in the european countries. Soc. Sci. Res. 30, 195e218. https:// development of behaviour specific environmental norms - the example of
doi.org/10.1006/ssre.2000.0694. recycling and re-use behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 32, 277e284. https://
Gulland, I., Zero Waste Scotland, January 9, 2015. Edinburgh ‘nudging’ success in recy- doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.003.
cling. Available at: https://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/content/edinburgh-% McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2002. New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior:
E2%80%98nudging%E2%80%99-success-recycling [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social
Hage, O., So € derholm, P., Berglund, C., 2009. Norms and economic motivation in Marketing. J. Soc. Issues 56, 543e554. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00183.
household recycling: empirical evidence from Sweden. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Meng, X., Wen, Z., Qian, Y., 2016. Multi-agent based simulation for household solid
53, 155e165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.11.003. waste recycling behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 128, 535e545. https://
Hamilton, V., March 24, 2016. How ‘Guantanamera’ went from Cuba’s unofficial doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.033.
anthem to a Swedish recycling jingle. Available at: https://www.pri.org/stories/ Miafodzyeva, S., 2012. Understanding the Recycling Behaviour of Householders in
2016-03-24/how-guantanamera-went-cubas-unofficial-anthem-swedish- Multicultural Urban Areas: Case Study J€ arva. KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
recycling-jingle [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Stockholm.
Hansen, P.G., August 16, 2016. What is nudging? Available at: https:// Miafodzyeva, S., Brandt, N., 2013. Recycling behaviour among householders: syn-
behavioralpolicy.org/what-is-nudging/ [last accessed June 17, 2018]. thesizing determinants via a meta-analysis. Waste and Biomass Valorization 4,
Heinrich, K., June 9, 2017. How San Francisco Achieved a High Performing Food 221e235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-012-9144-4.
Waste Composting Program. Available at: https://beyondfoodwaste.com/what- Miliute, J., Plepys, A., 2009. Driving forces for high household waste recycling:
makes-san-franciscos-food-recycling-program-successful/ [last accessed June lessons from Sweden. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 1 (47), 50e62. Available at:
17, 2018]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262336629_Driving_Forces_for_
Hock, M.T.G., September 9, 2009. The National University of Singapore nudges. High_Household_Waste_Recycling_Lessons_from_Sweden [last accessed June
Available at: https://nudges.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/the-national- 17, 2018].
university-of-singapore-nudges/ [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Monbiot, G., June 30, 2011. Sustainable cities must be compact and high-density.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What A Waste. The World Bank. Available at: Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/
https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/ jun/30/sustainable-cities-urban-planning [last accessed June 17, 2018].
336387-1334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_Final.pdf [last accessed June 17, Nilsson-Djerf, J., 1999. MEASURING THE SOCIAL FACTORS OF INTEGRATED WASTE
2018]. MANAGEMENT A Case Study of Nine European Waste Management Pro-
Institute for Government, MINDSPACE Behavioural Economics. How behavior grammes. Lund University. Available at: https://www.lumes.lu.se/sites/lumes.
change theory can help meet current policy challenges. Available at: https:// lu.se/files/nilsson-djerf_jon.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018].
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/our-work/policy-making/mindspace- Nomura, H., John, P.C., Cotterill, S., 2011. The use of feedback to enhance environ-
behavioural-economics [last accessed June 17, 2018]. mental outcomes: A randomised controlled trial of a food waste scheme. Local
Iyer, E.S., Kashyap, R.K., 2007. Consumer recycling: role of incentives, information, Environment 16 (7), 637e653. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.586026.
and social class. J. Consum. Behav. 6, 32e47. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.206. Oblad, E., 2018. The Story of Ljubljana, Case Study #5. Zero Waste Europe. Available
Jenkins, R.R., Martinez, S.A., Palmer, K., Podolsky, M.J., 2003. The determinants of at: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/downloads/case-study-5-ljubljana-2/ [last
household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features accessed June 17, 2018].
and unit pricing. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45, 294e318. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Ølander, F., Thøgersen, J., 2005. The A-B-C of recycling. Eur. Adv. Consum. Res. 7,
S0095-0696(02)00054-2. 297e302. Available at: http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/13834/eacr/vol7/E-07
Jesson, J.K., Pocock, R.L., Stone, I., 2014. Barriers to Recycling: A Review of Evidence [last accessed June 17, 2018].
since 2008. Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), Birmingham. Park, S., 2018. Factors influencing the recycling rate under the volume-based waste
Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20Barriers%20 fee system in South Korea. Waste Manag. 74, 43e51. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Synthesis%20Full%20Report%20final%20121214%20PUBLISHED%20-%20PDF.pdf j.wasman.2018.01.008.
[last accessed June 17, 2018]. Park, S., Lah, T.J., 2015. Analyzing the success of the volume-based waste fee system
Keep Britain Tidy. Supporting Waste and Recycling Service Changes. Available at: in South Korea. Waste Manag. 43, 533e538. https://doi.org/10.1016/
http://www.keepbritaintidy.org/sites/default/files/resource/Supporting%20waste j.wasman.2015.06.011.
%20%26%20recycling%20service%20changes.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Pettifor, H., 2012. Patterns of Household Practice, an Examination into the Rela-
Keep Britain Tidy. Staff provision and training. Available at: http://www. tionship between Housework and Waste Separation for Households in the
keepbritaintidy.org/sites/default/files/resource/Staff%20Provision%20and% United Kingdom. Institute for Social & Economic Research (ISER). Available at:
20Training.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018]. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2012-
Keep Britain Tidy. Available at: http://www.keepbritaintidy.org/. 14 [last accessed June 17, 2018].
Kessler, T., Fritsche, I., 2018. Sozialpsychologie: eine Einführung. In: Sozial- Pickin, J., Randell, P., 2017. Australian National Waste Report 2016. Department of
psychologie. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp. 1e9. the Environment and Energy. Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/
KIK Environmental Investment Centre. Waste Wolf teaches people to sort waste. protection/waste-resource-recovery/national-waste-reports/national-waste-
Available at: https://www.kik.ee/en/success-story/waste-wolf-teaches-people- report-2016 [last accessed June 17, 2018].
sort-waste [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Prisco, J., CNN, May18, 2017. Can psychology influence the way we recycle? Avail-
Klo€ ckner, C.A., Oppedal, I.O., 2011. General vs. domain specific recycling behaviour - able at: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/18/health/psychology-of-recycling/
applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination model to recycling index.html [last accessed June 17, 2018].
in Norwegian student homes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 463e471. https:// Puyuelo, B., Colo n, J., Martín, P., Sa
nchez, A., 2013. Comparison of compostable bags
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.009. and aerated bins with conventional storage systems to collect the organic
Knussen, C., Yule, F., 2008. “I’m not in the habit of recycling”: the role of habitual fraction of municipal solid waste from homes. A Catalonia case study. Waste
behavior in the disposal of household waste. Environ. Behav. 40, 683e702. Manag. 33, 1381e1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.02.015.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507307527. R4R, 2014a. Final Report on Good Practices. Regions for Recycling (R4R). Available
Kottasova , I., April 20, 2018. China trash ban is a global recycling wake up call. at: http://www.regions4recycling.eu/upload/public/Reports/Finalreport-on-
Available at: http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/20/news/china-trash-recycling- identified-Good-Practices.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018].
environment/index.html [last accessed June 17, 2018]. R4R, 2014b. GOOD PRACTICE TALLINN: WASTE AWARENESS EDUCATIONAL CAM-
Kurian, J., 2006. Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management. PAIGNS FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS. Regions for Recycling (R4R). Available at:
Habitat Int. 30, 863e871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.009. https://www.regions4recycling.eu/upload/public/Good-Practices/GP_Tallinn_
Li, C.J., Huang, Y.Y., Harder, M.K., 2017. Incentives for food waste diversion: explo- education-for-children-and-adults.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018].
ration of a long term successful Chinese city residential scheme. J. Clean. Prod. Recyclebank, Available at: https://www.recyclebank.com/.
156, 491e499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.198. RECYCLING magazin, April 17, 2018. bvse: recycling braucht verbesserte Müll-
Loan, L.T.T., Nomura, H., Takahashi, Y., Yabe, M., 2017. Psychological driving forces trennung. Available at: https://www.recyclingmagazin.de/2018/04/17/bvse-
behind households’ behaviors toward municipal organic waste separation at recycling-braucht-verbesserte-muelltrennung/ [last accessed June 17, 2018].
source in Vietnam: a structural equation modeling approach. J. Mater. Cycles Reichenbach, J., 2008. Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe - a re-
Waste Manag. 19, 1052e1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-017-0587-3. view of pilot research and implementation studies. Waste Manag. 28,
Ma, J., Hipel, K.W., 2016. Exploring social dimensions of municipal solid waste 2809e2814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.008.
management around the globe e a systematic literature review. Waste Manag. Rompf, S.A., 2014. System Trust and Cooperation: the Case of Recycling Behavior.
56, 3e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.041. Munich Pers. RePEc Arch, p. 60279. Available at: https://mpra.ub.uni-
Ma, J., Hipel, K.W., Hanson, M.L., Cai, X., Liu, Y., 2018. An analysis of influencing muenchen.de/60279/ [last accessed June 17, 2018].
factors on municipal solid waste source-separated collection behavior in Guilin, Saphores, J.M., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2006. Household
China by Using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustain. Cities Soc. 37, 336e343. willingness to recycle electronic waste - an application to California. Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.037. Behav. 38 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505279045.
Martin, M., Williams, I.D., Clark, M., 2006. Social, cultural and structural influences Schumaker, E., August 3, 2016. The Psychology Behind Why People Don’t Recycle.
18 D. Knickmeyer / Journal of Cleaner Production 245 (2020) 118605

Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/psychology-of-why-people- UN DESA, 2017. World Population Prospects: the 2017 Revision, Key Findings and
dont-recycle_us_57697a7be4b087b70be605b3?guccounter¼1 [last accessed June Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248. United Nations, Department
17, 2018]. of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Available at: https://population.un.
Schwab, N., Harton, H.C., Cullum, J.G., 2014. The effects of emergent norms and org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf [last accessed June 17,
attitudes on recycling behavior. Environ. Behav. 46, 403e422. https://doi.org/ 2018].
10.1177/0013916512466093. UN DESA, 2018. 68% of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050.
Schüßler, K., 2012. NDR, “Goldgrube Müll”. Available at: http://www.spiegel.tv/ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Available
videos/158216-goldgrube-muell [last accessed June 17, 2018]. at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-
Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10, of-world-urbanization-prospects.html [last accessed June 17, 2018].
221e279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5. UN-HABITAT, 2010. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities, Water and
Science Daily, April 21, 2017. Making bins more convenient boosts recycling and Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2010. United Nations Human Settlements Pro-
composting rates. Available at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/ gramme (UN-HABITAT). Available at: https://un.org.ir/en/resources/publications/
04/170421123255.htm [last accessed June 17, 2018]. item/3449-un-habitat-solid-waste-management-in-the-world-s-cities-water-
Seyring, N., Dollhofer, M., Weißenbacher, J., Herczeg, M., McKinnon, D., Bakas, I., and-sanitation-in-the-world-s-cities-2010-en.html [last accessed June 17, 2018].
2015. Assessment of separate collection schemes in the 28 capitals of the EU. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Zero Waste Case Study: San Jose. Avail-
European Commission - DG ENV, Brussels. BiPRO and the Copenhagen Resource able at: https://www.epa.gov/transforming-waste-tool/zero-waste-case-study-
Institute (CRI). Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/ san-jose [last accessed June 17, 2018].
publication/2c93de42-a2fa-11e5-b528-01aa75ed71a1. Varotto, A., Spagnolli, A., 2017. Psychological strategies to promote household recy-
SF Environment. Recycling & Composting in San Francisco - FAQs. Available at: cling . A systematic review with meta-analysis of validated fi eld interventions.
https://sfenvironment.org/recycling-composting-faqs [last accessed June 17, J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 168e188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.011.
2018]. Vassanadumrongdee, S., Kittipongvises, S., 2018. Factors influencing source sepa-
SF Environment, 2003. Resolution Setting Zero Waste Date, Resolution No. 002-03- ration intention and willingness to pay for improving waste management in
COE - March 6, 2003. Available at: https://sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/ Bangkok, Thailand. Sustain. Environ. Res. 28, 90e99. https://doi.org/10.1016/
editor-uploads/zero_waste/pdf/resolutionzerowastedate.pdf [last accessed June j.serj.2017.11.003.
17, 2018]. Veolia, U.K.. Plastics recycling. Available at: https://www.veolia.co.uk/
SF Environment, 2009. Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance, Ordinance westberkshire/waste-services/waste-services/recycling/plastics-recycling [last
No. 100-09. San Francisco. Available at: https://sfenvironment.org/policy/ accessed June 17, 2018].
mandatory-recycling-composting-ordinance [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Vicente, P., Reis, E., 2007. Segmenting households according to recycling attitudes in
Shi, X., Thanos, A.E., Celik, N., 2014. Multi-objective agent-based modeling of single- a Portuguese urban area. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52, 1e12. https://doi.org/
stream recycling programs. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 92, 190e205. https:// 10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.01.005.
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.002. Vicente, P., Reis, E., 2008. Factors influencing households’ participation in recycling.
Shrum, L.J., Lowrey, T.M., McCarty, J.A., 1994. Recycling as a marketing problem: a Waste Manag. Res. 26, 140e146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07077371.
framework for strategy development. Psychol. Mark. 11, 393e416. https:// Vilella, M., September 15, 2016. Zero Waste Cities: At The Forefront Of The Sus-
doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220110407. tainable Development Goals Agenda. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.
Sile, A.W., November 14, 2016. Singapore government focuses on recycling, but com/mariel-vilella/zero-waste-cities-at-the_b_12029704.html [last accessed
residents fail to pay their part. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/14/ June 17, 2018].
singapore-government-focuses-on-recycling-but-residents-fail-to-play-their- Wan, C., Shen, G.Q., Choi, S., 2017. Experiential and instrumental attitudes: inter-
part.html [last accessed June 17, 2018]. action effect of attitude and subjective norm on recycling intention. J. Environ.
Simon, J.M., 2018. The Story of Contarina, Case Study #4. Zero Waste Europe. Psychol. 50, 69e79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.02.006.
Available at: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/downloads/case-study-4-the-story- Whishaw, I.Q., Bergdall, V., Kolb, B., 2006. Chapter 8 analysis of behavior in labo-
of-contarina/ [last accessed June 17, 2018]. ratory rats. In: The Laboratory Rat, pp. 191e218.
Southerton, D., McMeekin, A., Evans, D., 2011. International Review of Behaviour WHO, 2017. Strategic communications framework for effective communications.
Change Initiatives, Social Research. Edinburgh, The Scottish Government. World Heal. Organ. 3, 1e56. https://www.who.int/mediacentre/communi
Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/02/01104638/0 [last cation-framework.pdf.
accessed June 17, 2018]. Widdowson, S.J., Maunder, A., Read, A., 2014. Household recycling incentives - do
Stern, P.C., 2000. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of envi- they work?. In: Proceedings of the 20th WasteCon Conference 6-10 October
ronmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56, 407e424. https://doi.org/ 2014. Somerset West, Cape Town. Available at: https://infrastructurenews.co.za/
10.1111/0022-4537.00175. wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/06/Widdowson-S.J.-et-al-65.pdf [last
Sustainable Development Goals. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un. accessed June 17, 2018].
org/sdgs [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Williams, I.D., Taylor, C., 2004. Maximising household waste recycling at civic
Szaky, T., July 2, 2014. New labeling takes confusion out of recycling. Available at: amenity sites in Lancashire, England. Waste Manag. 24, 861e874. https://
http://www.packagingdigest.com/sustainable-packaging/new-labeling-takes- doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.02.002.
confusion-out-recycling140702 [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Wilson, D.C., 2015. Global Waste Management Outlook. United Nations Environ-
The Economist, March 24, 2012. Nudge nudge, think think. The use of behavioural ment Programme (UNEP). Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/
economics in public policy shows promise. Available at: https://www. 1324051 [last accessed June 17, 2018].
economist.com/node/21551032 [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Wollan, M., June 10, 2009. San Francisco to toughen a strict recycling law. Available
Thomas, C., 2001. Public understanding and its effects on recycling performance in at: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/11recycle.html?_r¼0 [last accessed
Hampshire and Milton Keynes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 32, 259e274. https:// June 17, 2018].
doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00065-9. Wood, W., Quinn, J.M., Kashy, D.A., 2002. Habits in everyday life: thought, emotion,
Thomas, C., Sharp, V., 2013. Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and action. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83, 1281e1297. https://doi.org/10.1037/
and its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: a review of social 0022-3514.83.6.1281.
norms and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 79, 11e20. https://doi.org/ Woodard, R., Firoozmand, F., Harder, M.K., 2000. The use of cash vouchers to incenti-
10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.010. vise householders to recycle. Proc. Waste 2006; Sustain. Waste Resour. Manag.
Timlett, R.E., Williams, I.D., 2008. Public participation and recycling performance in Woodring, D. Hong Kong’s woeful recycling efforts a result of mistrust in the system
England: a comparison of tools for behaviour change. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. and lack of government support for the industry. Available at: https://www.
52, 622e634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.08.003. scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1859345/hong-kongs-woeful-
Timlett, R.E., Williams, I.D., 2009. The impact of transient populations on recycling recycling-efforts-result-mistrust-system [last accessed June 17, 2018].
behaviour in a densely populated urban environment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Xu, D.Y., Lin, Z.Y., Gordon, M.P.R., Robinson, N.K.L., Harder, M.K., 2016. Perceived key
53, 498e506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.03.010. elements of a successful residential food waste sorting program in urban
Timlett, R., Williams, I.D., 2011. The ISB model (infrastructure, service, behaviour): a apartments: stakeholder views. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 362e370. https://doi.org/
tool for waste practitioners. Waste Manag. 31, 1381e1392. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.107.
10.1016/j.wasman.2010.12.010. Yau, Y., 2012. Stakeholder engagement in waste recycling in a high-rise setting.
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S., Read, A.D., 2004. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Sustain. Dev. 20, 115e127.
investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brix- Zaman, A.U., 2015. A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste
worth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 41, 191e214. https://doi.org/10.1016/ management: lessons learned and guidelines. J. Clean. Prod. 91, 12e25. https://
j.resconrec.2003.11.001. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.013.
Tsaur, R.C., 2014. Analysis of the relationships among motivation to recycle, will- Zaman, A.U., Lehmann, S., 2011. Urban growth and waste management optimization
ingness to recycle, and satisfaction with recovery stations in Taiwan. WSEAS towards “zero waste city.”. City, Cult. Soc. 2, 177e187. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Trans. Environ. Dev. 10, 26e34. Available at: http://www.wseas.us/journal/pdf/ j.ccs.2011.11.007.
environment/2014/a065715-137.pdf [last accessed June 17, 2018]. Zero Waste Europe. Available at: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/.
UN DESA, 2013. World Economic and Social Survey 2013. United Nations Depart- Zero Waste International Alliance. Available at: http://zwia.org/.
ment of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Available at: https://www.un. Zhu, N., 2016. Impact of Communication Appeals on Recycling Behaviors Among
org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/wess2013/WESS2013.pdf Undergraduate Students. Purdue University.
[last accessed June 17, 2018].