determinants of recycling behavior: a uc berkeley...

Kao Saechao Recycling determinants May 7 2007

p. 1

Determinants of Recycling Behavior: A UC Berkeley Case Study

Kao Saechao

Abstract Recycling lessens the need to extract the planet’s limited raw material resources. Understanding the factors that influence or promote recycling behavior can lead to more efficient recycling programs. Housing types are one examples of the many factors that can affect recycling. Residences halls (Res Halls), fraternities, and sororities are separate housing options on the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) campus. Each housing type presents a different environment and has a separate management for its recycling programs. Four categories of explanatory variables related to recycling behavior (internal motivators, external motivators, internal facilitators, and external facilitators) are examined to determine their influential value on student recycling for aluminum, plastic, and glass beverage containers. Self-reported recycling rates and assessment of each explanatory variable were attained through questionnaires given to student participants. Students living in Residential Halls were found to have higher recycling rates for all the different material types. However, the study did not reveal any consistent findings the relationship between housing type and student recycling rates.


p. 2

Introduction

Understanding what affects our recycling behaviors can lead to better and more effective

recycling programs in our communities. There are many factors that influence human recycling

behavior and previous research on this topic has led to the discovery of many different

explanatory variables. Hornik et al (1995) reviewed approximately 70 of these studies and found

four recurring classes or categories of variables that were best used to determine recycling

behavior: Internal Facilitators (IF), External Facilitators (EF), Internal Motivators (or Incentives)

(IM), and External Motivators (or Incentives) (EM). Internal Motivators are psychological

factors that lead individuals to be self-motivated in continuing a certain act or task (Do Valle et

al 2004). External Motivators are psychological factors that motivate individuals in continuing

an act through things they cannot control (Hornik et al 1995, Werner and Makela 1998, Bratt

1999). Internal Facilitators are factors that provide individuals with the knowledge and mental

capacity to complete a task properly. External Facilitators can be characteristics of the

surrounding physical environment that allow for the completion of a task and also barriers that

can discourage individuals from doing a task.

Corraliza and Berenguer (2000) examined how the interaction between personal variables

(Internal Motivators and Facilitators) and situational variables (External Motivators and

Facilitators) affected recycling behavior. The situational variables referred to the physical

environment such as placement and size of collection bins while the personal variables referred

to cultural values and beliefs. According to the study, individuals recycle only when the situation

or their environment provided them with the opportunity to do so regardless of their moral stance

or amount of knowledge. Corraliza and Berenguer (2000) also noted that low levels of moral

obligation to recycle did not mean people did not recycle at all and a variable which normally

has a strong influence on a person’s behavior will not always produce the same results when

other variables are present. Therefore, the different categories of variables do interact with each

other and all types of variables must be taken into account when trying to determine what

influences an individual’s recycling behavior.

In a study completed by Do Valle et al (2005), various attitude-behavioral theories and

models were combined to produce a more complex, but complete, model that better predicted

human recycling behavior. The combined model utilizes all the different variable categories that

predicts recycling behavior and allows for the incorporation or consideration of multiple


p. 3

variables before an action is carried out. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TOPB) was a main

structural component to Do Valle et al’s combined behavioral model and it is also widely used in

many other research studies on environmental psychology and behavior. TOPB allows for better

prediction of pro-environmental behavior because it considers specific attitudes towards

recycling rather than more global questions such as whether individuals think recycling is good

or bad. Another reason why Do Valle et al elected to use TOPB is because it does find a link

between the different factors affecting recycling behavior, unlike in Hornik et al’s (1995)

proposed model. TOPB finds direct and indirect relationships between the variables: attitude

towards act, subjective norm (i.e. peer pressure), Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) (beliefs

about how difficult or controllable a task is), Specific knowledge (about how, where, when, and

what to recycle), and lastly perceived performance and convenience of recycling.

The TOPB, combined with models about internal motivations, values, and knowledge,

contributed to Do Valle et al’s combined model. This resulting model has a complex web where

there are many paths to actual recycling behavior and none of them have to be linear.

Recycling participation can greatly be affected by an individual’s physical and social

environment or by the amount of organization and structure within those environments. Different

social structures and recycling programs can vary from community to community which

translates to differences in the program efficiency, participation rates, and recycling frequency.

Werner and Makela (1998) investigated the motivations that influenced recycling behavior.

The study revealed that the more knowledge and personal satisfaction people receive from

recycling, the more likely they are to do it on a long term basis. The study claims that making a

task mandatory does not necessarily change behavior; rather, the best way to get people to do

something is to make the task a fun and positive experience. Integrating competition into the

activity can act on some people’s drive to participate or try harder. Werner and Makela presents

the idea that introducing an exciting or interactive recycling program into a community can

increase the recycling rates depending on how well-developed the program is. Therefore, it may

be interesting to measure how advanced the recycling programs are for different communities

and to then compare the recycling rates amongst the different communities.

Cheung et al (1999) applied the TOPB on wastepaper recycling by college students in Hong

Kong and found out that TOPB in addition to knowledge was not a good predictor of recycling

behavior. However, past behavior and habits did affect recycling participation because the


p. 4

repetitive acts overpowered TOPB. This study reveals that the environment or housing location

does not necessarily affect student recycling behavior because their previous behavior prior to

moving into the dormitories were not amended after the move. It will be interesting to see if the

same holds for the college students here at UC Berkeley. This study further supports Corraliza

and Berenguer’s (2000) idea that some variables can overshadow others and negate their

influences. The failure to increase recycling participation in Cheung et al’s (1999) study could

also have been due to the quality of the college’s recycling program which was not revealed.

As found in these past studies, the four main classes of variables (IF, EF, IM, EM) are critical

factors that can influence pro-environmental attitudes and action. My study utilizes Hornik et al’s

(1995) model to assess whether each variable played a role in determining the recycling behavior

of students living in the Greek houses and in Units 1 and 2 of the campus’s residential halls (Res

Halls). Do Valle et al’s (2005) model does take into account the relationships between variables

but it deals more with personal values, attitudes, and the individual’s perception of their access

or ability to complete a task. It neglects taking into account the true physical environmental

conditions and limitations that can hinder an act. This is one of the reasons why I elected to use

Hornik et al’s framework for my study. Since I am looking at different housing types, there are

certain physical limitations and amenities that are present at each housing type. Examples of

limitations and amenities are ample space for recycling bins, funding for the recycling programs,

and recycling coordinators or managers.

Although Cheung et al did not find a link between housing locations and recycling

participation, very few studies have examined this relationship so it warrants further study. Their

study took place in Hong Kong so cultural differences in attitudes, behavior, and governance

could have potentially affected their results. Additionally, my study also examines Greek houses

which were not included in Cheung et al’s (1999) study. Cheung et al’s (1999) study did not look

specifically at whether a certain housing type affects a student’s recycling behavior, but whether

their past behavior could be altered after entering a new environment and getting increased

knowledge. Management and structure of recycling programs for each of the housing types does

vary widely on the UC Berkeley campus; therefore, re-examining the relationship between

housing type and recycling behavior can still be worthwhile.

My hypotheses are: (H1) Students living in the Res Hall units have the highest recycling

rates and (H2) Fraternities have the lowest recycling rates. I am assuming that the organization or


p. 5

structure of the living conditions and recycling programs amongst the Greek houses to affect the

recycling rates for residents. The recycling rates are hypothesized to be lower in the fraternity

houses due to the inconsistency, and in some cases, the absence of recycling programs,

managers, or recycling bins found in some fraternity houses on campus. The objectives of this

study is to examine if there are any pattern in the recycling behavior between students living in

the Res Halls, fraternity houses, and sorority houses, and if so, to identify the common factors or

differences that bring about these differences.

Methods

Variables tested The response variables for the framework or behavioral model used in this

study to predict recycling behavior were the percentage of aluminum, plastic, and glass beverage

containers that students recycled on a weekly basis. Additionally, estimates of weekly paper

recycling percentages were also recorded to assess whether any patterns similar to the beverage

containers and amongst the different housing types or gender can be found. If similar patterns

were found, then the behavioral models were further verified to be good predictors of recycling

behavior. Student participants were also asked to give an estimate of their weekly consumption

or the amount of beverage containers that they used. This information was used to attain average

values for the amount of materials students used and then compared them with the self-reported

recycling rates. The explanatory variables tested included gender and the three different housing

types: fraternity houses, sorority houses, and Units 1 and 2 of the campus Residential Halls.

Twelve other explanatory variables were also included in the model. These twelve factors

consisted of three representative sub-variables from each of the four main categories of variables.

The explanatory sub-variables were selected from their respective categories depending on how

easy the information was to attain through the surveys, how quickly questions based on them

could be answered without giving too much thought, and also to be somewhat representative of

the literature I reviewed. In the model, internal guilt or ecological concern (Guilt), the belief that

an individual’s actions did matter (Locus of control), and personal values or norms (Moral

obligation) comprised the Internal Motivator/Incentives category. Awareness of the

anthropogenic effects on the environment (Impact awareness), knowledge on what consumer

products are recyclable or how to correctly dispose of them (Recycling knowledge), and general

education regarding the natural environment or natural resources (Environmental education)


p. 6

made up the Internal Facilitators group. The perceived difficulty or extra effort put into sorting

out the different recyclable products into the proper bins (Sorting), the disposal conditions,

location, and information available (Convenience), along with the availability of recycling bins

next to trash cans (Bin proximity) comprised the External Facilitators category. Lastly, housing

regulations and laws (Rules), direct criticism and social pressure from peers (Peer pressure),

along with community support or influence to join a cause (Conformity pressure) made up the

External Motivators category. Table 1 provides a summary of all the explanatory variables used

in the behavioral model.

Table 1. Summary of explanatory variables

Housing type Gender Internal Motivators

Internal Facilitators

External Facilitators

External Motivators

Fraternity Female Guilt Impact awareness

Convenience Rules

Sorority Male Locus of control

Recycling knowledge

Sorting Peer pressure

Units 1 or 2 Moral obligation

Environmental education

Bin proximity Conformity pressure

For each type of recyclable material, the resulting models took the following mathematical

form:

Recycling % = b0 + b1(Guilt) + b2(Locus of control) + b3(Moral obligation) + b4(Impact

Awareness) + b5(Recycling knowledge) + b6(Environmental education) + b7(Sorting) +

b8(Convenience) + b9(Bin proximity) + b10(Rules) + b11(Peer pressure) + b12(Conformity

pressure) + b13(Fraternity, yes=1 and no=0) + b14(Sorority, yes=1 and no=0) + b15(Units,

yes=1 and no=0) + b16(Female, yes=1 and no=0) + b17(Male, yes=1 and no=0).

The Recycling % was the response variable, b0 was the y-intercept, and b1 through b12 were the

parameter estimates or coefficients of their respective explanatory variable. The first twelve

explanatory variables were part of Hornik et al’s behavioral model while the last five factors,

which included the housing types and gender, were the additions to Hornik et al’s framework

that I made in order to determine whether housing types had any significant influences on

recycling behavior.


p. 7

Data collection This study was conducted at the University of California, Berkeley campus.

Five fraternity and five sorority organizations were randomly selected from the Greek directory

to voluntarily participate in the study. Students living in Unit 1 and Unit 2, the Res Halls, were

also randomly recruited since they were located in close proximity to the Greek houses. Students

walking in pairs or very small groups near the Res Hall buildings were the main targets to be

recruited in the study since they were easier to manage than larger groups. They were also

thought to be more willing to stop and participate since they had accompaniment.

The administered surveys consist of multiple questions based on Likert-type 5-point scales

(see Appendix 1: Sample Questionnaire). Survey participants were asked to identify the degree

to which they agreed or disagreed with statements on the questionnaires. This Likert-type

questionnaire method had been widely used in many similar studies (Corraliza and Berenguer

2000, Do Valle 2004, Meneses and Palacio 2005).

Data analysis The questionnaire data were analyzed through a combination of JMP IN

Version 5.1 software and Microsoft Office Excel 2003 software. Using Excel, basic data

distributions tables and graphical figures were constructed to compare totals and average values

amongst the different response and explanatory variables. Using JMP IN, the stepwise regression

analysis was conducted after fitting a model to the data. The selection process for most

significant factors involved setting the stepwise direction to ‘Mixed’ with the ‘Prob to Enter’

value set at 0.250 and the ‘Prob to Leave’ value set at 0.100. After the stepwise process has

found the most active explanatory variables, a standard least squares regression analysis was

completed with the active variables. This process produced the coefficients or parameter

estimates for all significant active variables along with their standard errors and probability

statistics (p-values). This regression analysis was completed for each of the four different

recyclable material types. For each recyclable material, two trials were conducted. The first trial

was strictly limited to the twelve explanatory variables from Hornik et al’s framework. The

second trial was conducted with the housing types and gender included with the other twelve

explanatory variables. Then the two trials for the same recyclable material types were compared

to one another to see if similar explanatory variables appeared in the final mathematical models.

Lastly, the models for each material type were compared to each other to see if the same

explanatory variables were present.


p. 8

Results

A total of 125 questionnaires were handed out. The Greek participants were fairly equal in

number but the Res Hall participants were a little lower. Also, female participants succeeded

male participants by 25 (Table 2). On average, the weekly usages of beverage containers by

males were more than double the number for females (Table 3). For all beverage container types,

fraternity residents had greater consumption or usage of beverage containers, also over two times

greater, than residents of sororities or Res Halls. The average beverage container usage between

students living sorority houses and Units 1 and 2 were very similar (Fig.1).

Table 2. Total number of students surveyed by housing type and gender Fraternity Sorority Units 1 and 2 Male Female 43 49 33 55 70

Table 3. Weekly average beverage container usage by gender Female Male Units Sorority Total Average Units Fraternity Total Average Aluminum 52 103 155 2.2143 16 277 293 5.3273 Plastic 66 114 180 2.5714 26 305 331 6.1082 Glass 2 24 24 0.3429 15 71 86 1.5636

0

2

4

6

8

10

Fraternity Sorority Units

Aver

age

wee

kly

usag

e

AluminumPlasticGlass

Figure 1. Average weekly beverage container usage for each housing type


p. 9

The recycling rates are higher across the board for all material types in the Units than in the

Greek houses. The recycling rates for aluminum and paper are lowest in the fraternity houses but

they had greater recycling rates for plastic and glass than the sorority houses.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Aluminum Plastic Glass Paper

Per

cent

age

Rec

ycle

d

FraternitySororityUnits

Figure 2. Average weekly (self-reported) recycling rate by housing type

For aluminum, the only two explanatory variables that were present in both trials were Guilt

and Conformity pressure. For plastic there were no significant variables found in the trial that

excluded housing. But for the trial that did include housing types, living in the Units was found

to have created a better model fit (R2= 0.0589). For glass, the same model was produced for both

trials and the only significant factor was Conformity pressure. For paper, Guilt was the only

factor present in both trials. Table 4 summarizes the different trials and the significant factors

that were present.


p. 10

Table 4. Resulting regression models: most active factors (coefficients +/- standard error, p-values) Alumin.

(Hornik model)

Alumin. (Hornik+Housing)

Plastic (Hornik model)

Plastic (Hornik+Housing)

Glass (Hornik model)

Glass (Hornik+Housing)

Paper (Hornik model)

Paper (Hornik+Housing)

Guilt 7.6937 +/- 3.2220, p=0.0190

8.2701 +/- 3.0534, p=0.0080

6.0831 +/- 2.5628, p=0.0192

7.0549 +/- 2.5254, p=0.0061

Locus of Control

4.6552 +/- 2.50112, p=0.0659

6.5867 +/- 2.0999, p=0.0021

Impact Awareness

-6.1531 +/- 2.9563, p=0.0402

5.5946 +/- 2.5571, p=0.0306

Bin Proximity

-6.9614 +/- 3.4642, p=0.0474

Rules -6.4311 +/- 3.4379, p=0.0645

Conformity Pressure

8.4899 +/- 2.5654, p=0.0013

7.1725 +/- 2.5113, p=0.0053

9.8795 +/- 4.8956, p=0.0503

9.8795 +/- 4.8956, p=0.0503

Fraternity House

-27.4546 +/- 5.9978, p<0.0001

-20.9484 +/- 5.3837, p=0.0002

Unit 1 or 2 18.6230 +/- 7.2665, p=0.0118

Y-intercept 34.3347 +/- 24.0415, p=0.1566

46.2412 +/- 20.6141, p=0.0273

57.5309 +/- 3.5819, p<.0.0001

18.5370 +/- 18.8095, p=0.3303

18.5370 +/- 18.8095, p=0.3303

11.6405 +/- 11.1852, p=0.3001

22.0069 +/- 10.5727, p=0.0395

R2 0.2596 0.3327 0.0589 0.0924 0.0924 0.1217 0.1626


p. 11

Discussion

The data did support the first hypothesis that students living in the Res Halls, Units 1 and 2,

did have higher recycling rates. However, hypothesis 2 was not fully supported by the results.

Although students living in fraternity houses did have lowest recycling rates for aluminum and

paper, it was found that they had higher recycling rates for plastic and glass. The results from the

modeling analysis do not strongly support the idea that housing types do have any effect on

recycling behavior. Therefore, my extension of Hornik et al’s (1995) framework failed.

Some factors that could have affect the study are that maybe I had bad data or not enough

data. Some possible flaws with the survey design were that I did not leave the response variables

open to participants to fill in. I opted to have them select from a few ranges of answer in order to

reduce the time participants spent on the questionnaire. This was a tactic I used so participants

would not feel burdened to think critically about the questions. Also, maybe I could have

selected different representative variables for the study. Some students may have over estimated

while some may have underestimated their usage and or recycling rates. However, the lack of

any good support for my models does not mean that housing types do not affect recycling

behavior at all. Future studies can look into measuring actual recycling rates and maybe assess

how well developed of a recycling program exists within the different house types. Examples of

this can include recording bin sizes, bin quantity, or funding.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Lisa Bauer for helping me get started on this project with ideas. Thank you to

the ES 196 instructors for all their hard work and assistance.


p. 12

References

Bratt, C. 1999. The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior 31:630-656.

Cheung, S.F., D.K.S. Chan, and Z.S.Y. Wong. 1999. Reexamining the theory of planned

behavior in understanding wastepaper recycling. Environment and Behavior 31:587-612. Corraliza, J.A. and J. Berenguer. 2000. Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: a situational

approach. Environment and Behavior 32:832-848. Do Valle P.O., E. Reis, J. Menezes, and E. Rebelo. 2004. Behavioral determinants of household

recycling participation: the Portuguese case. Environment and Behavior 36:505-540. Do Valle P.O., E. Rebelo, E. Reis, and J. Menezes. 2005. Combining behavioral theories to

predict recycling involvement. Environment and Behavior 37:364-396. Hornik J., J. Cherian, M. Madansky, and C. Narayana. 1995. Determinants of recycling behavior:

a synthesis of research results. The Journal of Socioeconomics 24:105-127. Meneses, G.D. and A.B. Palacio. 2005. Recycling behavior: a multidimensional approach.

Environment and Behavior 37:837-860. Werner, C.M. and E. Makela. 1998. Motivations and behaviors that support recycling. Journal of

Environmental Psychology 18:373-386.


p. 13

Appendix 1 Greek & Res Hall Recycling Survey

Please circle your place of residence: [Fraternity] [Sorority] [Unit 1] [Unit 2]

If Unit 1 or Unit 2, please circle your sex: [Female] [Male]

How many aluminum cans do you use per week? __________

What percent do you recycle? (Please circle one) [0%] [1-20%] [21-40%] [41-60% ] [61-80%] [81-100%]

How many plastic bottles do you use per week? __________


How many glass bottles do you use per week? __________


What percentage of your paper (e.g. white/office paper, class notes, newspapers, junk mail, etc.) do you recycle? (Please circle one)

[0%] [1-20%] [21-40%] [41-60% ] [61-80%] [81-100%] Please rate how much you agree with the following statements.

Strongly Agree Agree

Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree

Strongly Disagree

· I feel guilty when I do not recycle. 5 4 3 2 1 · My recycling habits do not make a significant difference

for the environment. 5 4 3 2 1

· Each one of us has a moral obligation to protect the environment. 5 4 3 2 1

· I don’t know how the environment is affected by the garbage we throw away everyday. 5 4 3 2 1

· All plastics can be placed in the recycling bins. 5 4 3 2 1 · Because there is plenty of raw material resource,

recycling is not that important. 5 4 3 2 1

· Having to sort recyclable materials (i.e. paper from bottles and cans) prevents me from recycling. 5 4 3 2 1

· Having recycling bins that were easier to find or get to would affect my recycling behavior. 5 4 3 2 1

· I would recycle something if there were a recycling bin placed next to the trash bin. 5 4 3 2 1

· Having policies/rules within my residence would increase recycling. 5 4 3 2 1

· I feel pressure from my peers and friends to recycle. 5 4 3 2 1


p. 14

Appendix 2. Survey data

Row

Number Aluminum Used

Aluminum % Recycled

Number Plastic Used

Plastic % Recycled

Number Glass Used

Glass % Recycled

Paper % Recycled

Fraternity House (Y=1,N=0)

Sorority House

Unit 1 or 2

Male (Y=1,N=0) Female

1 2 80 2 60 1 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 100 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 20 1 0 0 1 0 4 4 80 3 60 1 0 20 1 0 0 1 0 5 4 60 5 60 1 40 40 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 80 0 80 1 0 0 1 0 7 4 100 1 100 1 80 80 1 0 0 1 0 8 2 60 2 80 1 60 60 1 0 0 1 0 9 8 100 3 60 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 10 5 80 3 60 6 80 60 1 0 0 1 0 11 5 80 15 80 0 80 1 0 0 1 0 12 3 80 6 100 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 13 10 40 15 40 5 20 20 1 0 0 1 0 14 10 100 10 100 10 100 0 1 0 0 1 0 15 0 5 80 5 100 100 1 0 0 1 0 16 72 100 112 40 2 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 17 20 60 10 60 15 60 60 1 0 0 1 0 18 4 0 2 20 0 60 1 0 0 1 0 19 2 60 2 100 1 100 40 1 0 0 1 0 20 2 80 15 100 0 80 1 0 0 1 0 21 10 20 3 20 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 22 6 40 12 40 4 40 0 1 0 0 1 0 23 1 0 0 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 24 3 40 1 60 2 20 40 1 0 0 1 0 25 5 60 2 80 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 26 0 7 100 3 100 60 1 0 0 1 0 27 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 1 0 28 5 0 0 0 20 1 0 0 1 0 29 10 100 30 100 2 100 40 1 0 0 1 0 30 1 40 1 80 0 80 1 0 0 1 0 31 1 20 13 100 1 80 60 1 0 0 1 0


p. 15

32 10 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 33 4 40 5 60 0 20 1 0 0 1 0 34 6 80 1 0 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 35 8 0 0 3 100 40 1 0 0 1 0 36 5 60 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 37 3 80 3 40 0 40 1 0 0 1 0 38 6 20 0 2 100 60 1 0 0 1 0 39 12 0 4 20 1 0 100 1 0 0 1 0 40 9 60 1 40 0 60 1 0 0 1 0 41 4 0 0 1 20 40 1 0 0 1 0 42 2 0 1 100 2 20 40 1 0 0 1 0 43 5 0 0 1 60 20 1 0 0 1 0 44 3 60 2 100 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 45 1 40 3 80 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 46 1 80 1 60 0 100 0 1 0 0 1 47 2 60 3 40 0 40 0 1 0 0 1 48 2 40 2 80 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 49 1 100 4 100 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 50 0 4 100 0 40 0 1 0 0 1 51 0 0 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 52 2 60 2 100 0 20 0 1 0 0 1 53 0 7 80 1 40 0 0 1 0 0 1 54 4 60 3 60 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 55 3 40 4 20 1 40 100 0 1 0 0 1 56 3 80 0 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 57 5 60 1 40 0 100 0 1 0 0 1 58 0 2 40 1 80 40 0 1 0 0 1 59 2 100 6 60 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 60 6 60 4 100 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 61 0 0 0 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 62 2 100 1 80 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 63 3 80 3 100 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 64 2 100 2 40 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 65 0 1 20 0 20 0 1 0 0 1 66 0 1 80 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 67 7 80 2 60 0 100 0 1 0 0 1


p. 16

68 2 80 1 40 1 20 80 0 1 0 0 1 69 0 3 60 1 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 70 2 80 1 80 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 71 4 80 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 72 5 80 2 100 0 40 0 1 0 0 1 73 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 74 8 80 1 60 2 80 20 0 1 0 0 1 75 3 100 2 40 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 76 0 1 0 0 100 0 1 0 0 1 77 4 100 5 80 0 40 0 1 0 0 1 78 1 100 0 0 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 79 0 0 0 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 80 0 3 60 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 81 2 60 8 60 0 100 0 1 0 0 1 82 2 80 0 0 3 60 40 0 1 0 0 1 83 0 5 80 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 84 0 0 0 1 80 20 0 1 0 0 1 85 4 80 5 20 4 100 100 0 1 0 0 1 86 1 80 2 100 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 87 6 100 2 40 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 88 0 2 0 6 0 20 0 1 0 0 1 89 4 100 5 60 0 80 0 1 0 0 1 90 0 1 40 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 91 2 100 7 80 3 0 40 0 1 0 0 1 92 3 80 0 0 60 0 1 0 0 1 93 0 12 100 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 94 1 40 1 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 95 1 100 5 100 1 20 60 0 0 1 1 0 96 2 40 3 60 2 80 60 0 0 1 1 0 97 2 100 6 60 3 100 60 0 0 1 1 0 98 5 100 5 80 1 80 80 0 0 1 0 1 99 1 80 2 100 0 80 0 0 1 0 1 100 6 100 1 80 0 60 0 0 1 0 1 101 3 60 0 0 60 0 0 1 0 1 102 1 40 3 80 0 80 0 0 1 0 1 103 1 80 1 60 0 100 0 0 1 0 1


p. 17

104 2 100 4 100 0 40 0 0 1 0 1 105 2 80 6 100 0 60 0 0 1 0 1 106 1 100 12 100 0 80 0 0 1 0 1 107 1 100 0 1 100 40 0 0 1 1 0 108 4 80 2 60 1 60 60 0 0 1 0 1 109 0 0 0 80 0 0 1 1 0 110 4 100 1 60 0 80 0 0 1 1 0 111 2 60 2 80 0 60 0 0 1 1 0 112 9 80 1 100 0 100 0 0 1 0 1 113 2 80 0 0 80 0 0 1 0 1 114 1 60 1 80 0 100 0 0 1 1 0 115 0 2 40 7 80 40 0 0 1 1 0 116 4 100 6 100 0 80 0 0 1 0 1 117 1 80 3 80 0 60 0 0 1 0 1 118 8 60 0 0 60 0 0 1 0 1 119 0 3 100 0 80 0 0 1 0 1 120 0 0 0 80 0 0 1 1 0 121 1 100 0 0 60 0 0 1 0 1 122 0 4 80 0 60 0 0 1 1 0 123 3 60 2 80 1 0 60 0 0 1 1 0 124 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 1 0 1 125 0 4 80 0 80 0 0 1 0 1


p. 18

Appendix 2. Survey data (cont’d)

Row Guilt Locus of Control

Moral Obligation

Impact Awareness

Recycling Knowledge

Environ. Education Sorting

Convenience or Locale

Bin Proximity to Trash Can

Rules & Policy

Peer Pressure

Conform. Pressure

1 4 3 4 5 1 2 2 5 4 4 1 4 2 5 1 4 1 2 1 3 4 5 4 2 4 3 3 3 5 4 5 1 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 1 1 2 5 4 3 2 4 5 4 2 4 1 5 2 4 4 3 5 4 4 6 4 4 2 3 2 1 3 5 5 5 4 4 7 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 5 4 2 4 8 4 1 5 1 2 1 2 4 5 5 3 4 9 5 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 4 5 4 2 10 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 11 4 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 12 4 4 4 2 2 1 2 4 5 4 3 3 13 4 2 4 2 3 2 2 4 5 5 2 4 14 5 1 5 2 5 1 1 5 5 5 3 5 15 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 5 4 2 4 16 4 2 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 17 3 3 5 3 4 3 3 5 5 4 3 5 18 4 1 5 3 4 1 1 5 5 5 2 1 19 4 3 4 2 1 1 3 3 4 4 2 3 20 5 4 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 3 3 21 2 2 4 3 1 1 2 5 4 4 3 4 22 3 2 4 3 2 1 4 5 5 3 3 4 23 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 1 3 3 24 4 4 3 3 2 1 5 2 3 3 2 1 25 3 2 3 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 26 5 1 5 2 2 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 27 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 3 28 5 2 5 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 2 5 29 4 2 4 1 3 1 3 5 5 4 4 5 30 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 31 4 4 4 3 2 1 4 5 5 4 3 4


p. 19

32 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 33 4 2 5 4 2 3 2 2 5 5 2 2 34 4 4 5 3 2 3 2 5 4 3 2 2 35 5 2 5 4 2 4 2 5 4 4 2 2 36 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 5 4 5 3 4 37 4 2 2 1 3 3 3 4 5 4 2 3 38 2 2 5 4 2 3 5 4 5 4 3 3 39 4 1 5 3 2 3 3 5 5 5 1 2 40 5 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 5 4 3 2 41 5 2 5 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 3 1 42 3 1 5 3 2 3 2 4 4 5 1 4 43 4 1 3 4 2 3 2 4 5 4 2 2 44 4 2 3 2 2 3 1 4 4 5 5 5 45 4 3 3 2 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 3 46 4 4 3 2 2 1 3 4 3 5 4 5 47 4 2 4 1 1 1 2 5 5 5 4 5 48 3 4 3 3 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 49 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 5 3 3 3 5 50 3 3 4 3 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 51 4 3 3 3 1 1 4 5 4 5 4 5 52 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 5 5 4 3 3 53 2 3 3 1 2 1 4 5 5 5 3 4 54 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 5 4 4 5 5 55 4 2 2 2 1 1 3 5 3 5 3 2 56 3 4 4 2 3 1 3 5 4 5 3 5 57 5 5 3 2 1 1 2 3 5 5 4 4 58 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 4 5 5 3 5 59 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 5 3 5 4 5 60 2 4 4 2 2 1 2 4 5 5 4 4 61 1 1 4 1 2 1 4 3 1 4 4 5 62 4 3 5 2 1 1 3 4 4 4 2 4 63 4 3 4 1 2 1 1 5 3 5 5 3 64 5 1 2 1 1 1 4 5 4 4 2 2 65 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 5 4 4 5 5 66 3 4 4 2 3 1 2 2 3 4 2 3 67 4 2 4 1 3 1 1 4 3 5 4 5


p. 20

68 5 3 3 3 1 1 1 5 4 4 1 4 69 2 3 5 2 2 2 1 3 4 5 4 3 70 1 2 3 1 3 4 2 5 4 3 3 5 71 4 4 4 2 2 1 3 5 5 5 4 4 72 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 4 3 4 73 3 5 5 1 3 3 1 4 4 5 4 3 74 3 1 4 2 2 1 1 3 3 5 4 5 75 5 4 5 2 3 1 2 4 3 5 5 5 76 5 3 4 2 2 1 3 3 2 4 5 3 77 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 4 3 4 2 78 3 4 3 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 5 5 79 5 3 3 1 2 1 1 4 5 4 5 5 80 4 2 4 2 2 1 3 3 5 4 3 4 81 3 3 4 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 5 3 82 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 4 5 5 5 5 83 3 4 5 1 3 1 1 4 3 5 3 5 84 4 3 3 1 3 1 4 4 3 5 4 5 85 3 4 4 2 1 1 1 4 4 5 4 5 86 4 3 4 1 2 1 1 5 3 4 4 4 87 5 2 2 1 1 1 3 5 3 4 4 2 88 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 5 4 3 5 4 89 4 4 5 3 2 2 2 4 3 5 5 5 90 5 5 4 4 3 1 3 4 3 4 5 4 91 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 4 5 4 4 92 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 4 3 4 5 5 93 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 5 5 5 3 5 94 1 2 4 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 1 3 95 5 5 5 3 4 2 2 4 5 4 5 3 96 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 97 5 5 5 4 4 1 3 4 5 5 4 4 98 4 5 5 2 4 1 4 5 5 5 3 2 99 4 5 5 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 2 2 100 5 5 5 4 4 1 3 4 5 5 4 4 101 4 2 3 2 2 3 1 4 4 5 5 5 102 4 3 3 2 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 3 103 4 4 3 2 2 1 3 4 3 4 4 5


p. 21

104 4 2 4 1 1 1 2 5 5 4 4 5 105 3 4 3 3 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 5 106 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 5 3 5 3 5 107 3 3 4 2 1 1 2 5 4 3 2 4 108 4 2 4 1 5 2 4 4 3 1 4 4 109 4 4 2 3 2 1 3 5 5 5 4 4 110 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 5 4 2 4 111 4 1 5 1 2 1 2 4 5 5 3 4 112 4 2 2 2 1 1 3 5 3 4 3 2 113 3 4 4 2 3 1 3 5 4 3 3 5 114 5 5 3 2 1 1 2 3 5 5 4 4 115 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 4 5 5 3 5 116 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 5 3 5 4 5 117 3 3 4 2 1 1 2 5 4 4 2 4 118 4 2 4 1 5 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 119 4 4 2 3 2 1 3 5 5 5 4 4 120 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 5 5 4 4 121 4 1 5 1 2 1 2 4 5 5 3 4 122 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 123 5 5 5 2 1 1 2 4 5 4 5 4 124 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 5 5 5 5 4 125 5 5 4 1 1 1 3 4 5 5 4 3

determinants of recycling behavior: a uc berkeley...

Documents