1 / 12

Same same but different? Differentiation of determinants of high-cost and low-cost recycling

This study examines the impact of psychological factors on high-cost and low-cost recycling. It investigates beliefs about environmental consequences, efficacy, knowledge, personal norms, and social norms as predictors of recycling behaviors. The results suggest that norms and knowledge play a crucial role in recycling, while the predictors vary in their impact depending on the cost of recycling. The findings highlight the need for interventions targeting norms and providing financial incentives for high-cost recycling.

kevindavis
Télécharger la présentation

Same same but different? Differentiation of determinants of high-cost and low-cost recycling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Same same but different?Differentiation of determinants of high-cost and low-cost recycling Maria Andersson Chris von Borgstede Department of Psychology University of Gothenburg, Sweden

  2. Recycling:A social dilemma • The environmental benefits of recycling are great if the majority of the population recycles but marginal if only a few do… • The conflict is between to overcome barriers and recycle (that is to cooperate) or not (the egoistic choice). • The collective utility achieved by one individual’s cooperative behaviour is insignificant, but will be significant when the majority cooperates.

  3. The low-cost hypothesis • Environmentally significant behaviours differ both in perceived economic and behavioural costs. • Environmental concern and attitudes are stronger predictors of behaviors that are relatively easy or inexpensive to perform (low-cost) than to behaviors that are more demanding or costly to perform (high-cost). • We argue that the definition of low-cost and high-cost recycling relies on the individual’s perception of the situation.

  4. Aim • To determine whether psychological factors have different impact on low-cost and high-cost recycling.

  5. Question formulations • Do beliefs about environmentalconsequences and efficacy have a larger impact on low-cost than on high-cost recycling? • Is knowledge more strongly related to high-cost than low-cost recycling? • Will personal norms explain more of the variance in high-cost than low-cost recycling? • Will social norms guide behavior to the same extent in high-cost and low-cost recycling?

  6. Hypotheses We hypothesize the following factors to impact : • Low-cost recycling more than high-cost recycling: • Beliefs about environmental consequences • Efficacy • High-cost recycling more than low-cost recycling: • Knowledge • Personal norms • Same extent in low-cost and high-cost recycling: • Social norms

  7. Method: Measures • A mail survey was sent to 1,000 respondents living in Sweden. • Beliefs about the environmental consequences: • Environmental consequences, five items, α = .82 • Efficacy, four items, α = .69 • Knowledge (where to dispose of different waste categories): • Low-cost waste categories: glass, paper, and batteries, α = .66 • High-cost waste categories: metal, rigid plastic, non-rigid plastic, and organic waste, α = .79 • Distance: • Short-distance: less than 500 metres (45%) • Long-distance: over 500 metres (55%) • The normative components: • Personal norms, four items, α = .84 • Social norms, three items, α = .71

  8. Method: Dependent variables • Frequency of low-cost and high-cost recycling: • Low-cost recycling: glass, paper, and batteries, α = .63 • High-cost recycling: metal, rigid plastic, non-rigid plastic, organic waste, α = .77

  9. Results: Low-cost recycling Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Environmental consequences.08 .06 .00 Efficacy -.20** -.16** -.10 Knowledge low-cost.37** .36** .35** Distance .00 .00 .01 Social norms — .15** .11** Personal norms — — .22** R2adj .22 .24 .27 Personal norms mediate efficacy (z=6.40*), knowledge (z=3.02**)and social norms (z=5.29**)

  10. Results: High-cost recycling Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Environmental consequences.10* .07 .02 Efficacy -.09 -.05 .05 Knowledge high-cost.44** .38** .37** Distance .07 .08* .09* Social norms — .24** .17** Personal norms— — .35** R2adj .25 .30 .37 Personal norms mediate knowledge (z=2.97**) and social norms (z=5.71**)

  11. Results: Difference low-high Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Environmental consequences.06 .04 -.03 Efficacy .03 .06 .07 Knowledge .41** .37** .37** Distance .09 .09* .10* Social norms — .17** .12** Personal norms— — .24** R2adj .19 .21 .25 Personal norms mediate social norms (z=3.44**)

  12. Conclusive discussion • Norms and knowledge are the most important predictors of recycling. • The predictors explain low-cost and high-cost recycling to a different extent. • Knowledge, distance, and norms impact high-cost recycling more than low-cost recycling. • The impact of distance was larger for high-cost recycling, but in the unexpected direction. • The most active way to increase the overall level of recycling seems to be to impact people’s norms. • In high-cost recycling, financial sanctions and legal interventions may be needed in order to remove barriers for behavioural change.

More Related