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