Title: University community responses to on-campus resource recycling
Published in: Resources, conservation & recycling
Authors: T.C. Kelly, I.G. Mason, M.W. Leiss b, S. Ganesh
Abstract
In order to gain a better understanding of the attitudes and behaviour of a campus
community toward a university concourse-based recycling scheme, a survey of 1400
students and staff, at Massey University, New Zealand was conducted. A written
questionnaire focused on how recycling participation and source separation performance
might be improved, and on general attitudes within the university community toward
recycling. The recycling scheme was generally well supported, with predominantly
positive recycling attitudes and self-reported recycling behaviour indicated for both
students and staff. The major suggested improvement to the concourse system was to
have better signage in more appropriate places, and therewas strong support for extension
of the recycling scheme across the wider campus. Significant relationships were found
between self-reported recycling behaviour and attitudes toward recycling, self-reported
recycling behaviour and campus occupation (student, postgraduate student, academic
staff, or general staff) and self-reported recycling behaviour and place of work.
1. Introduction
Environmentally friendly management of resource residuals is a vital factor in moving
toward the goal of a sustainable society. In this regard, the actions of reduce, re-use and
recycle within the waste management hierarchy assume particular importance (Oskamp,
1995; Hamburg et al., 1997), especially in relation to public participation in waste
management systems. Since successful recycling programmes depend not only on
technology, but also on the involvement of people, the development and maintenance of
environmentally responsible behaviour is of considerable importance.
University communities possess a number of defining characteristics in comparison to the
general population. A large student group, primarily in the adolescent and young adult
age range, exists alongside a typically much smaller staff group with ages spanning the
adult range. The community is highly educated, with personal income distribution
generally at the low end of the range for students, and at the middle to higher end of the
range for the staff group. In New Zealand, the recent gender balance across the overall
university student population is slightly uneven, with 44% male and 56% female across
all universities in 2001 and 2002 (MoE, 2001; MoE, 2002a), although this may be
expected to differ elsewhere.
University staffing ratios are similar, with 47% male and 53% female across all
NewZealand universities in 2002 (MoE, 2002b).
Studies of recycling behaviour, with university students as the subject population, have
largely focused on the effects of short-term interventions, using prompts, rewards,
feedback and/or education, on paper or beverage container recycling behaviour (Geller et
al., 1975;Wittmer and Geller, 1976; Luyben et al., 1979; Luyben and Cummings,
1981;Wang and Katzev, 1990; Diamond and Loewy, 1991; Goldenhar and Connell,
1992; Katzev and Mishima, 1992; Austin et al., 1993). These investigations were
conducted in North American college (university) settings, with studies by Katzev and
Mishima (1992) and Austin et al. (1993) focussing on a student mailroom and two
academic departments, respectively, and the remainder occurring within student halls of
residence. In these studies, rewards were typically shown to result in greater recycling
participation than either prompts or control scenarios. However, behaviour usually
reverted to pre-intervention levels once the reward or prompt was removed. McCaul and
Kopp (1982) found that goal setting increased beverage container recycling by college
students, however, a public commitment approach did not result in any significant effect
in this study. In contrast, Wang and Katzev (1990) found individual (room rather than
person) commitment to be successful in increasing paper recycling by college students,
but that a group commitment approach was unsuccessful.
Inconvenience was reported as a major influence on college student recycling behaviour
by McCarty and Shrum (1994), who further commented that such concerns appeared to
outweigh attitudes about the long-term importance of recycling behaviours. Williams
(1991), based on a telephone survey of undergraduate and graduate students at a North
American university, reported that a lack of storage space was cited as the main reason
for not recycling. However, two-thirds of students reported that they did recycle
returnable bottles and cans, about one-half that they recycled newspapers, and one-fifth
that they recycled non-returnable bottles and cans. A proposal for introduction of a
university-wide recycling system was highly supported. Feedback (Goldenhar and
Connell, 1992; Katzev and Mishima, 1992), and proximity of recycling containers
(Luyben et al., 1979), have been found to be positively correlated with student recycling
behaviour. Personal inconvenience has also been reported as a significant barrier to
recycling in household studies (e.g., Oskamp, 1995).
The applicability of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned
behaviour (TPB) in explaining student recycling behaviour has been examined by
Goldenhar and Connell (1993), Cheung et al. (1999) and Rise et al. (2003). From their
North American, halls-of-residence-based study, Goldenhar and Connell reported that
intentions to recycle played a mediating role on the impact of attitudes and norms on
student recycling behaviour. Past experience with recycling significantly influenced
intent and behaviour for males only, whilst the relationship between norms and intent was
statistically significantly greater for females, leading to the conclusion that gender
specific interventions may be necessary for influencing recycling behaviour amongst
young adults. Cheung et al. (1999), in their study of Hong Kong undergraduates
(approximately 36% male and 64% female), found that whilst the TPB significantly
predicted intent and self-reported behaviour, it could explain only 28–29% of the
variance. Perceived difficulty was found to moderate the link between intention and
behaviour, but perceived control had no significant impact. However, two additional
factors, general environmental knowledge and past behaviour, were found to be
significant in predicting recycling behaviour, with the latter explaining 34–35% of the
variance. In a study of Norwegian university students, Rise et al. (2003) investigated the
influence of implementation intentions (i.e., when, where and how to act) in predicting
the performance of regular exercising and drinking carton recycling using the TPB
model. For recycling, implementation intentions had a marginal mediating effect between
either perceived behavioural control or behavioural intention and actual, self-reported,
behaviour. The full TPB model explained 65.5% of the variance in recycling behaviour,
with behavioural intentions as the strongest determinant and past behaviour also making a
significant impact.
In a structural modelling approach, McCarty and Shrum (1994) investigated the linkages
between values, attitudes and recycling behaviour in a study of North American
undergraduate students. Values were not directly related to self-reported recycling
behaviour, but did directly influence attitudes about both the inconvenience and
importance of recycling. For more general information on university student
environmental attitudes in North America, Latin America and Australia, the reader is
referred to Yount and Horton (1992), Forgas and Jolliffe (1994) and Schultz (2001).
The vulnerability of a group of Canadian undergraduates (24% male, 76% female) to
anti-recycling arguments was reported by Koestner et al. (2001). Highly introjected
individuals (i.e., those who recycled because of guilt) were found to be influenced by the
personal attractiveness of the source of anti-recycling arguments presented to them, rather
than the strength of the argument. It was suggested that in order to promote long-term
environmentally friendly behaviour, it is important for individuals to operate from truly
integrated motivational factors, related to values and feelings that this behaviour is
personally important, rather than from introjection.
Barker et al. (1994) compared the self-reported and actual paper recycling behaviour of
undergraduate students (38% male, 62% female) at a North American university. Whilst
self-reported attitudes toward recycling and self-reported recycling behaviour were
highly positive, only 13.5% of all participants in the study actually recycled. Of these
recyclers, 14% (2) were male and 86% (12) were female.
In considering the overall relevance of past social science research on recycling, Oskamp
(1995) has issued a cautionary note regarding generalisation across approaches, localities
and times, commenting that past findings may be less relevant to current conditions. For
example, in situations where recycling participation has become a widespread and normal
behaviour, personal characteristics related to earlier recycling behaviour may have little
or no relevance. Conversely, in places where recycling is virtually unknown, such
findings may well be of value.
A Zero Waste program was initiated at Massey University, New Zealand, in 1999, with
the aim of promoting an ongoing commitment to demonstrably sound environmental
management in the areas of both physical and energy resources (Mason et al., 2003). One
of the initial foci of the overall program was on the source separation and quantification
of solid resource residuals arising from the student cafeteria, kitchen and concourse areas
on the campus. A system of recycling bins was established in these areas, a publicity and
education campaign launched, and a study of the types and quantities of materials
collected conducted between January–April, 2000. Bins located within the main student
cafeteria dining and kitchen areas were accompanied by signage, indicating which
materials were to be deposited in each bin. In the concourse area, the bins were colourcoded according to the material category to be deposited, with green for food residuals
plus food contaminated paper, blue for all other paper and cardboard, yellow for selected
plastics and black for “rubbish”, and labelled with the words food, paper, plastics, and
rubbish, respectively.
Details and results of the source separation study have been reported by Mason et al.
(2004).
Sign-boards were not present in the concourse area at this time, but were erected at three
locations shortly following the completion of the initial study period in April, 2000. Prior
to the implementation of the Zero Waste program, a paper recycling system operated with
limited success within some departmental buildings, and a central glass collection point
was sited within a short distance of the student centre. Otherwise, recycling facilities
were largely absent from the campus. Within the adjacent city of Palmerston North,
however, where many students and a majority of staff reside, full kerbside recycling has
operated since late 1997, in addition to several pre-existing recycling centres. Public
awareness of recycling is relatively high throughout New Zealand and between 1999–
2003, 54% (39/74) of the local authorities in New Zealand, including Palmerston North,
formally adopted Zero Waste policies (ZWNZ, 2004).
Apart from the study reported by Austin et al. (1993) there appears to be no information
in the literature about university community responses to recycling programs. This paper
reports on a study undertaken to assess the level of participation in a recycling scheme by
a university community, and to understand ways in which participation in general, and
source separation in particular, might be improved.
2. Methods 2.1. Location The study took place in 2001 at the Massey University Turitea
campus, which is situated in Palmerston North, NewZealand (latitude 40 ◦ S). Following
the source separation project,
the recycling system was left in place, with residuals collection subsequently operated by
University Facilities Management staff. The location of the source separation study area
and the layout of the concourse bin clusters are shown in Fig. 1. Details of the recycling
instructions for the cafeteria and kitchen areas are given in Mason et al. (2004), whilst
those for the concourse area are shown in Fig. 2.
2.2. Survey design and administration A written 8-page questionnaire was developed
comprising four sections: (1) knowledge of and self-reported participation in the Massey
University recycling system; (2) opinions about the system and ways to improve it; (3)
general attitudes toward recycling and the environment; and (4) demographic
information. Responses were indicated via tick boxes and Likert scales, with spaces for
written comments provided. The complete mail-out kit contained the questionnaire, a
formal personalised letter of introduction, an information sheet about the recycling
scheme and a return, post-free envelope. Returns were able to be mailed via public
mailboxes, the internal university mail system and also deposited into two drop boxes,
positioned at prominent locations on the campus.
A sample of 1400 people, comprising 1000 students and 400 staff, was selected from an
estimated total campus population of 6500 students and 1800 staff. Student names were
selected randomly from university records, and the 400 staff members were randomly
selected from the Massey University staff telephone list. The sample was split into
students and staff in order to enable data from each group to be analysed separately, as it
was expected that staff members would constitute a significantly different demographic
group from students, and thus, there was reason to expect some difference in attitudes and
behaviours.
As an incentive to encourage people to return the questionnaire within two weeks of the
mail-out date, timely respondents were eligible to participate in a draw for four modest
prizes (dinner vouchers).A unique ID-number was printed in one corner of the
questionnaire in order to keep records of respondents, to identify non-respondents who
were sent a single follow-up written reminder, and to identify those people eligible to
participate in the draw for the four prizes. The survey procedure was anonymous and was
approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee.
2.3. Data analyses The Chi-square test for independence was utilised to examine the
significance of interdependence between selected responses. Significant interdependence
was further examined using correspondence analysis (Greenacre, 1984; Hair et al., 1998).
Statistical analyses were carried out using SAS System software version 8.2 (SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Response rate The total number of respondents was 678 (448 students and 230 staff),
giving an overall response rate for the survey of 48.4%. Staff responded at a slightly
higher rate (58%) than the students (45%). Surveys sent to 12% of the staff and 4.3% of
the students were returned as not contactable. Assuming that the samples were
heterogeneous, and given that the sample sizes were a significant proportion of the total
populations, sampling errors at the 95% confidence level were 3.6% overall (6.1% for
staff and 4.5% for students) (Moser and Kalton, 1971; de Vaus, 2002).
3.2. Sample characteristics The sample consisted of about two-thirds students and onethird staff (Table 1). The gender balance for both groups was similar to that previously
reported for New Zealand universities (MoE, 2001; MoE, 2002a, 2002b).
Just over half of those sampled were under 25 years of age, with the modal group being
the 20–25 age bracket. Over 60% of the respondents earned less than NZ$20,000
annually and 30% earned between NZ$20,000 and NZ$60,000 per year. Interestingly,
over half of all respondents were from the College of Sciences. It should be noted that the
College of Education was situated approximately 3 km from the Turitea campus,
meaning that staff and students from this college were less likely to frequent the study
area.
3.3. Campus recycling awareness and self-reported participation The awareness of the
four-bin recycling scheme was high for both students (96%) and staff (86%). The reason
for the higher awareness of students might be attributed to the fact that they frequented
the concourse area more often than did staff (77% of students were there at least once per
week, while only 45% of staff frequented the area at least weekly).
Of those who were aware of the scheme, 95% of staff and 76% of students had used it at
least once. About half of the respondents described themselves as frequent recyclers on
campus while less than 7% said they never recycled. Nearly, half (49%) of all
respondents said they always recycled waste when on the concourse and a further quarter
frequently recycled when on the concourse.
Only 57% of respondents were aware of the signage accompanying the bins, which is
much lower than those who were aware of the bins themselves. This suggested that the
signs were not noticeable enough, in the wrong places, or were just too few in number.
Of those who knew about them, 80% found them helpful (77% of students; 87% of staff).
3.4. Potential for improvements to the recycling scheme Sixty percent of the university
community were ‘generally happy’ with the design of the recycling bins, and 58% agreed
that changes in the set-up, design and size of the recycling bins would not change their
recycling behaviour. Most respondents did not express strong preferences for changes in
the design attributes of the recycling scheme, though there was some support for brighter
coloured bins (Table 2).
The majority of respondents indicated that they would not change their recycling
behaviour if the number of categories of recyclables was either decreased or increased.
Asked if they would recycle more often if they did not have to separate recyclables into
so many categories, 76% of respondents (72% of students; 83% of staff) said they would
not be affected, while 20% (23% of students; 15% of staff) said they would recycle more
often.
Likewise, if there were more categories in which to recycle, 62% (56% of students; 72%
of staff) indicated that they would not change their behaviour and the remainder were
split about evenly between recycling more often and less often.
A slight majority of the university community (56%) reported that they did not want
more information, either on the university recycling scheme or on recycling in general.
Most respondents did not agree that they would recycle more if they had more
information per se (Fig. 3k). As discussed earlier, recycling is widespread in New
Zealand and many local authorities have signed up to a zero waste policy. However, 50%
of respondents
(53% of students, 46% of staff) indicated that they would recycle more often given
specific information on what happens to recyclables following collection. A majority of
respondents (71%) signalled that social pressure would not cause them to recycle more
(Fig. 3j). The response was notably stronger for staff (80%) than for students (66%)
In response to questions concerning wider recycling participation, 83% of students and
69% of staff stated that they would recycle more if there were more bins around campus.
When asked where they would put these new bins, the suggested locations were spread
throughout the campus and9%of respondents said theywanted bins everywhere on
campus.
When exploring such “convenience” factors a significant relationshipwas found between
occupation (i.e. undergraduate student, postgraduate student, academic staff, or general
staff) and the question: If there were more bins around campus, would you recycle more?
(χ2 = 20.04, d.f. = 3, p = 0.0002). Correspondence analysis revealed that staff were more
associated with no while students were more associated with yes in response to the
question.
This makes sense since students typically frequent a greater variety of campus locations
than do staff. Most other relationships concerning “convenience” factors were not
significant.
Several issues stood out in the comments that respondents made about the recycling
scheme and recycling in general. Comments regarding the signage focused on both
increasing awareness and providing information. Some respondents wanted to see more
and bigger signs in more noticeable places nearer to the bins, and even on the bins
themselves. A number of respondents also indicated that even with the signs, they were
still confused and not sure where to put their waste. Proposed improvements for the signs
included pictures on the signs which show the most common types of waste that go into
the appropriate bins, less text on the signs to make them less confusing and, to the
contrary, more details. Since some respondents also said that the reason for their not
recycling was their ignorance of what types of waste go where and their fear of putting
something into the wrong bin.
A number of respondents commented more generally on the need for better information
and education on recycling and the recycling scheme (although the majority of
respondents did not want more information), and the need for promoting the scheme (e.g.
through the student newspaper, radio station, and at orientation). Many comments were
directed at the need to improve the wider convenience of recycling, primarily by
providing more bins at a greater diversity of locations on campus, especially in student
accommodation areas. Some advocated providing some form of incentive to recycle, such
as prizes or awards, while others suggested removing ‘rubbish’ bins altogether to force
people to recycle, though as some pointed out, this would mean that recyclables would be
contaminated with non-recyclables.
Another issue reported by a number of the respondents, and other observers, was that the
university facilities management staff member who emptied the recycling bins had been
seen transferring the contents of two or more bins into a single rubbish bag. This proved
to be very discouraging and some respondents said they thus considered the whole
recycling scheme to be a farce and not worth participating in.
3.5. Attitudes and environmental behaviour Responses to questions addressing attitudes
and beliefs were, in many cases, highly skewed toward strongly agree, or strongly
disagree (Fig. 3a–c and e–h). An overwhelming 98.7% of respondents thought that
recycling was beneficial for the environment (Fig. 3e), however, only about half reported
to be frequent recyclers, either on campus or at home.
Most respondents reported strong beliefs on the positive role of recycling (Fig. 3e, f and
h).
Significant relationships were found between self-reported recycling behaviour on
campus and responses to the statements: (1) It is my personal responsibility to recycle.
(χ2 = 87.93, d.f. = 6, p < 0.0001); (2) I don’t think recycling has many positive effects on
the environment (χ)2 = 43.92, d.f. = 6, p < 0.0001); (3) Disposing of waste in a landfill is
no worse than recycling (χ2 = 31.51, d.f. = 6, p < 0.0001); and (4) Whether I recycle or
not makes no difference (χ2 = 58.76, d.f. = 6, p < 0.0001). These findings are in contrast
to previous investigations into links between personal values, attitudes and a range of
pro-environmental behaviours, in which the link has typically been weak (McCarty and
Shrum, 1994; Oskamp, 1995; Chan, 1998; Scott, 1999; Biswas et al., 2000). However, as
reported by Barker et al. (1994), self-reported behaviour may differ from actual
behaviour.
Differences between staff and students in reported recycling attitudes and behaviour
could be seen in several responses. Forty-two percent of students and 70% of staff
reported to be frequent recyclers at home. Seventy percent of staff strongly agreed that
the natural environment was of great importance to them, while only 54% of students did
(Fig. 3a).
Eighty-three percent of staff members agreed with the statement: I make a great personal
effort to recycle as much as possible, with 44% strongly agreeing (Fig. 3b). Only 56% of
students agreed with the statement, with only 17% agreeing strongly. Forty-eight percent
of staff strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to recycle; only 27% of students felt
the same (Fig. 3c). Just 28% of all students had an uneasy or bad feeling when throwing
recyclable material into a normal rubbish bin in contrast to 49% of the staff. Finally, staff
members engaged in more environmentally friendly activities than did the students. All
of this is consistent with previous studies, where demographic factors like age and
income have a positive effect on recycling attitudes and behaviour (Hamburg et al., 1997;
Scott, 1999; Biswas et al., 2000). Schultz et al. (1995) listed personality, demographics
and attitudes of environmental concern as personal variables, some of which may be
related to recycling behaviour (e.g. high income has been reported as a good predictor of
recycling behaviour).
This study found a significant relationship (χ2 = 23.36, d.f. = 6, p = 0.0007) between the
occupation of the respondent (undergraduate student, postgraduate student, academic
staff, or general staff) and their on-campus recycling behaviour. The nature of this
relationship, as revealed by correspondence analysis, appeared to be predominantly a
contrast between undergraduate students recycling sometimes on campus against general
staff and postgraduate students (and to a lesser extent, academic staff) recycling on
campus frequently. There was also a significant relationship between the respondent’s
age grouping and on-campus recycling behaviour (_2 = 34.61, d.f. = 6, p = 0.0001), with
the younger groups tending to recycle sometimes, and the middle age groups tending to
recycle more frequently. Given that age has previously been shown to be a significant
factor in recycling behaviour, this suggests that programs to increase university
community recycling might consider targeting students and staff separately. However,
correspondence analysis also indicated that postgraduate students’ responses tended to be
more closely aligned with those of staff, than of undergraduate students, signalling that
separate targeting of postgraduate students may also be warranted.
There appeared to be weaker but still significant (p < 0.05) relationships between on
campus recycling behaviour and college of study/work (χ2 = 15.59, d.f. = 6, p = 0.0161),
and income level (χ2 = 13.59, d.f. = 6, p = 0.0345).However, there was no significant
relationship between on-campus recycling behaviour and gender, which is inconsistent
with other studies (e.g. Goldenhar and Connell (1993)).
4. Conclusions Pro-environmental and recycling attitudes were shown to be generally
positive on the campus. Awareness of the recycling scheme on the concourse was high
and reported participation rates showed that the scheme was relatively well supported by
students and staff.
The majority of the community were generally happy with the design of the concourse
scheme, with no real support for changing the number of categories for separation, or for
a change in bin size. There was limited support for more brightly coloured bins.
However, a need for improved and increased signage, showing which residuals should be
placed in which bin, was strongly signalled.
Two factors indicated as inhibiting people on campus from recycling more were a lack of
scheme-specific information and, in regards to wider participation, inconvenience.
Responses indicated that recycling could be improved by (1), providing information on
the fate of recyclables following collection, and more widely practised by (2), making it
more convenient, mainly with the introduction of more bins in strategic areas. There was
little support for increased provision of general information about recycling per se,
however, and social pressure was not indicated as a strong potential motivator to recycle.
Overall, the responses showed strong support for extension of the recycling scheme from
the concourse area to the remainder of the campus.
A significant relationship between attitudes toward recycling and self-reported recycling
behaviour was found, in contrast to previous reports in the literature. The study also
demonstrated significant correlations between campus occupation and self-reported
behaviour, and between place of work and self-reported behaviour.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank DanielG´erard and HaiAnBui for technical
assistance. Funding support from the Zero Waste NZ Trust and Massey University is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
Austin J, Hatfield DB, Grindle AC, Bailey JS. Increasing recycling in office
environments – the effects of specific, informative cues. J Appl Behav Anal
1993;26(2):247–53
Barker K, Fong L, Grossman S, Quin C, Reid R. Comparison of self-reported recycling
attitudes and behaviors with actual behavior. Psychol Rep 1994;75(1):571–7
Biswas A, Licata JW, McKee D, Pullig C, Daughtridge C. The recycling cycle: an
empirical examination of consumer waste recycling and recycling shopping
behaviors. J Public Policy Market 2000;19(1):93–105
Chan K. Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour:waste recycling in
HongKong. J Environ Manage 1998;52(4):317–25
Cheung SF, Chan DKS, Wong ZSY. Re-examining the theory of planned behavior in
understanding wastepaper recycling. Environ Behav 1999;31(5):587–612
de Vaus DA. Surveys in social research. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin; 2002
Diamond WD, Loewy BZ. Effects of probabilistic rewards on recycling attitudes and
behavior. J Appl Social Psychol 1991;21(19):1590–607
Forgas JP, Jolliffe CD. How conservative are greenies – environmental attitudes,
conservatism, and traditional morality among university-students. Aust J Psychol
1994;46(3):123–30
Geller ES, Chaffee JL, Ingram RE. Promoting paper recycling on a university campus.
JEnviron Syst 1975;5:39–57
Goldenhar LM, Connell CM. Effects of educational and feedback interventions on
recycling knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. J Environ Syst
1992;21(4):321–33
Goldenhar LM, Connell CM. Understanding and predicting recycling behavior – an
application of the theory of reasoned action. J Environ Syst 1993;22(1):91–103
Greenacre MJ. Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London, UK:
Academic Press; 1984
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis – with
readings. 5th ed. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall Inc.; 1998
Hamburg KT, Emdad Haque C, Everitt JC. Municipal waste recycling in Brandon,
Manitoba: determinants of participatory behaviour. Can Geogr 1997;41(2):149–
65
Katzev R, Mishima HR. The use of posted feedback to promote recycling. Psychol Rep
1992;71(1):259–64
Koestner R, Houlfort N, Paquet S, Knight C. On the risks of recycling because of guilt:
an examination of the consequences of introjection. J Appl Social Psychol
2001;31(12):2545–60
Luyben PD, Warren SB, Tallman TA. Recycling beverage containers on a college
campus. J Environ Syst 1979;9(2):189–202
Luyben PD, Cummings S. Motivating beverage container recycling on a college campus.
J Environ Syst 1981;11(3):235–45
Mason IG, Brooking AK, Oberender A, Harford JM, Horsley PG. Implementation of a
zero waste program at a university campus. Resources Conserv Recycl
2003;38(4):257–69
Mason IG, Oberender A, Brooking AK. Source separation and potential re-use of
resource residuals at a university campus. Resources Conserv Recycl
2004;40(2):155–72
McCarty JA, Shrum LJ. The recycling of solid-wastes – personal values, value
orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. J
Business Res 1994;30(1):53–62
McCaul KD, Kopp JT. Effects of goal setting and commitment on increasing metal
recycling. J Appl Psychol 1982;67(3):377–9
MoE. 2001. Students at public tertiary providers. http://www.minedu.govt.nz NZ
Ministry of Education,Wellington, New Zealand, Accessed 30 March, 2004
MoE. 2002a. Students at public tertiary providers. http://www.minedu.govt.nz NZ
Ministry of Education,Wellington, New Zealand, Accessed 06 April, 2004
MoE. 2002b. Statistical tables on tertiary staffing 2002. http://www.minedu.govt.nz NZ
Ministry of Education, Wellington, New Zealand, Accessed 06 April, 2004
Moser CA, Kalton G. Survey methods in social investigation. Aldershot, England:
Dartmouth Publishing; 1971
Oskamp S. Resource conservation and recycling: behavior and policy. J Social Issues
1995;51(4):157–77
Rise J, Thompson M, Verplanken B. Measuring implementation intentions in the context
of the theory of planned behavior. Scand J Psychol 2003;44(2):87–95
Schultz PW, Oskamp S, Mainieri T. Who recycles and when – a review of personal and
situational factors. J Environ Psychol 1995;15(2):105–21
Schultz PW. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and
the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 2001;21(4):327–39
Scott D. Equal opportunity, unequal results – determinants of household recycling
intensity. Environ Behav 1999;31(2):267–90
Wang TH, Katzev RD. Group commitment and resource conservation – 2 field
experiments on promoting recycling J Appl Social Psychol 1990;20(4):265–75
Williams E. College-students and recycling – their attitudes and behaviors. J College
Student Dev 1991;32(1):86–8
Wittmer J, Geller ES. Facilitating paper recycling: effects of prompts, raffles and
contests. J Appl Behav Anal 1976;9:315–22
Yount JR, Horton PB. Factors influencing environmental attitude – the relationship
between environmental attitude defensibility and cognitive reasoning level. J Res
Sci Teaching 1992;29(10):1059–78
ZWNZ, 2004. What’s NZ doing? http://www.zerowaste.co.nz Zero Waste New Zealand
Trust, Auckland, New Zealand, Accessed 06 April, 2004