TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERMARKET-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL
SHOPPING CAMPAIGNS IN CHANGING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR IN
by
MARJORIE J. CLARKE
A dissertation submitted to
the Graduate Faculty in Earth and Environmental Sciences
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
The
1999
x Printed on 100% Recycled Paper
© 1999
MARJORIE J. CLARKE
All Rights Reserved
This
manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Arts and
Sciences in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
________________
___________________________________________________
Date Co-Chair
of Examining Committee, Prof. Victor Goldsmith
________________
__________________________________________________
Date Co-Chair
of Examining Committee, Prof. Sara McLafferty
________________
___________________________________________________
Date Executive Officer, Prof. Frederick
Shaw
_________________________________________________
Member of Examining Committee, Prof. Cherukupalli Nehru
THE
Abstract
TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERMARKET-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL SHOPPING CAMPAIGNS
IN CHANGING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR IN
by
Marjorie J. Clarke
Advisors: Professor Victor
Goldsmith and Professor Sara McLafferty
To advance waste prevention
research, this study tested two environmental shopping educational campaigns in
Central objectives were to evaluate the campaigns' effectiveness in changing shopping behaviors, to compare the results of the campaigns to one another, and to examine the impact made by each of the educational devices. Features differentiating the campaigns employed here from previously tried approaches were their implementation in small, crowded, ultra-urban supermarkets, sale of diaper service in the stores, and showing of videos.
The survey data provided insight into what extent environmental awareness, attitudes, and behaviors of shoppers changed after exposure to environmental shopping campaigns. Shoppers at both stores increased purchases of refills and concentrates (10 to 20%), the already frequent recycling of cans and bottles increased slightly (~5%), and bringing deposit containers back increased (~15%). However, other desired environmental shopping behaviors decreased; purchasing of recyclable packaging decreased roughly 12%, and no one signed up for diaper service.
Path analyses showed that shoppers' environmental behavior was influenced only slightly by the amount of environmental knowledge they possessed, and that their behavior was influenced considerably more by their environmental attitudes and unknown factors outside the campaign.
The limited success in changing behavior, and the difficulties of implementation in an urban environment, lead to recommendations to improve store-based educational campaigns, supplemented with legislation and incentives encouraging manufacturers and retailers to market more environmentally-friendly packaging and products. Compared with recycling, waste prevention represents a new set of behavior patterns for most people. Environmental shopping programs should deploy more types of educational devices and approaches varying over extended periods, in an intensive manner, with cooperation of host stores, and augmented by media advertising campaigns.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II for supporting waste prevention research by
funding this research project; the Red Apple supermarket chain for agreeing to
provide two stores in which to conduct the environmental shopping campaigns;
the Gristede’s store managers and Red Apple staff
that assisted in campaign implementation; the General Health Care Corporation
for cooperating with the effort to market diaper service in the stores; and the
Environmental Action Coalition for its support in materials design and
attracting volunteers to assist in data collection. The efforts of the following individuals were
instrumental in various aspects of the study:
Duane Ebesu, for his invaluable assistance in
statistical analysis; Irv Weisman for his assistance
during production; Jan Johnson for her assistance in editing and generosity in
providing artwork for the brochures; all three for their moral support. I especially wish to extend my gratitude to
Profs. Victor Goldsmith, Sara McLafferty, Cherukupalli Nehru, Florence Lansana,
Robert Graff, and Arthur Langer, the present and past members of my
dissertation committee, for their encouragement and advice.
Table of
Contents
Chapter
1 Statement of the Problem
1
Introduction 1
The Solid Waste Hierarchy 2
Solid Waste Management Methods and Their Environmental Impacts 5
General Research Objectives 22
Chapter 2 Conceptual Design and
Literature Review 27
Consumer Behavior and Advertising 27
Research Hypotheses 29
Basic Project Parameters 29
Research Design Considerations 30
Experimental Design 33
Design of the Data Gathering Effort 53
Parameters for the Design of the Educational Campaign 88
Summary of the Experimental Design 102
Survey Design, Testing, and Administration 107
Design and Administration of the Volunteer Diaries 117
Design and Administration of the Storewide Purchases Data Gathering 118
Design / Selection of the Educational Materials and Campaign 122
Advance Planning for the Campaign 138
Campaign Summary 141
Campaign Experiences
– East and
Placement / Maintenance of Educational Materials in the Stores 145
Baseline Survey Results 164
Follow-up Survey Results 173
Bag Results 179
Diaper Results 184
Refills and Concentrates Results 189
Survey Analyses 193
Findings and Discussion 224
Cornell /
Other Research 280
Conclusions 283
Recommendations 299
Appendix A Supermarket Surveys 307
Appendix D Cost of Diapers 316
Appendix DG Survey Data Gathering Effort 325
Appendix DM Display of Educational Materials 331
Appendix E Survey Objectives, Designs, Questions, and Findings 332
Appendix FA Factor Analysis 378
Appendix G Evaluation and Selection of Educational Foci 384
Appendix I Incineration Technology and Impacts 396
Appendix L Landfill Technology and Impacts 440
Appendix M Project Indoctrination Letters to Managers and Cashiers 472
Appendix Q Questionnaires 475
Appendix R Waste Generation and the Hierarchy, Reduction, Reuse 486
and Recycling
Appendix SA Summary of Analyses 506
Appendix SP Methodology for Tracking Storewide Purchases 523
Appendix ST Baseline and Follow-up Survey Testing and Refinement 526
Appendix VD Volunteer Diaries 549
Appendix W Selection and Adaptation of Survey Questions 563
Appendix X Discussions with Designers of Environmental Shopping Materials 586
Appendix Z Educational Materials 595
Bibliography 605
List of Tables
1.
Projections of Population, Goods and Packaging
Generated in the
Waste Stream
2.
Projections of Recyclables Generated in the
3. Baseline Survey Results – Demographics 164
4. Baseline Survey Results -- Knowledge 166
5. Baseline Survey Results -- Source of Knowledge 167
6. Baseline Survey Results -- Attitudes 168
7. Self-Reported Behaviors 172
8. Follow-Up Survey Results -- Knowledge 174
9. Follow-Up Survey Results -- Attitudes 176
10. Follow-Up Survey -- Self-Reported Behaviors 178
11. Bag deliveries 181
12. East side bag sales 182
13. Baseline and Follow-Up Survey Bag Results 183
14. Baseline and Follow-Up Survey Diaper Results 188
15. Baseline and Follow-Up Survey Results – Refills and Concentrates 190
16. Follow-Up Survey -- Recollection of Education 193
17. Selected Cross-tabulations of Race vs. Attitude and Behavior 195
18. Selected Cross-tabs of Hispanic Origin vs. Attitude and Behavior 197
19. Selected Cross-tabs of Education vs. Attitude and Behavior 198
20. Selected Cross-tabs of Gender vs. Attitude and Behavior 199
21. Selected Cross-tabs of Age vs. Attitude and Behavior 200
22. Importance of Mandatory Recycling Law in Motivating Attitudes / Behavior Amongst Demographic Groups: Means 201
23. How Often Do You Bring a Reusable Bag With You?: Means
Comparison Amongst Demographic Groups 201
24. If You Were Offered Two Cents Would You Bring You Own Bag? 202
25. Changes in Behavior vs. Extent of Educational Intervention 213
26. Changes in Knowledge vs. Extent of Educational Intervention 214
27. Changes in Sources of Environmental Information vs. Extent of 215
Educational Intervention
28. Survey Variables Comprising Composite Variable: KNOWLEDG 218
29. Survey Variables Comprising Composite Variable: ATTITUDE 219
30. Survey Variables Comprising Composite Variable: BEHAVIOR 220
31. Intrinsic Motivations for Recycling / Source Reduction 268
32.
Elements of
33. Behavior Change from 1996 to 1997 San Francisco Shop Smart Campaign 277
34.
Recollection of Main Message of
List of Illustrations
Figures
1. Model of attitude change and behavior change through communication 68
2. Potential Topics for Survey Questions 84
3. Path Analysis for Composite Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Variables 221
4. Path Analysis for Factor Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Variables 223
Chapter
1
Statement of the Problem
In the late 1980s the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many states, and environmental groups came to recognize that there was a massive solid waste crisis looming in the near future. The causes of the crisis, as seen at that time, were that the amount of landfill space was suddenly decreasing markedly, and that the resource recovery plants (state-of-the-art solid waste incinerators) that had started to proliferate were not entirely environmentally benign, and were becoming more difficult to site. At the same time, the quantity of waste generated was increasing every year, due to increases in population and to per capita increases (i.e., the amount each person generates). Also, although other more environmentally sound waste management methods, such as recycling and composting, had just begun to be implemented in curbside and drop-off programs across the country, these have not made much of a dent in the long-term solid waste crisis.
As
the 1990s draw to a close, the consumption of products and packaging is
continuing to rise on a per-capita basis, and disposal capacity, particularly
in cities such as
An alternative to exporting all material that is not recycled is to design and implement incentives, programs, legislation and technologies that reduce the amount of materials that are generated, that cause products to be used longer prior to disposal, and that encourage more recycling/composting and use of recycled materials. While such initiatives will not, in the short term, come close to eliminating the need for disposal capacity or export, implementation of serious, multi-faceted approaches to these alternatives to disposal may well serve to facilitate the task of locating communities willing to provide disposal capacity, now and in the future. In the long run, reversing the trend towards increasing consumerism and the disposable society will be necessary to conserve resources for the future and to maintain a higher standard of living. It was with these objectives in mind that this research project was designed: to explore the extent to which consumer behavior can be modified to reduce the generation of waste.
In 1988 EPA established as national policy a hierarchy of solid waste management methods[1] as follows:
1. Source reduction (reducing the generation of waste by reducing use of products or packaging) and reuse (together referred to as waste prevention). Source reduction and reuse research, policies, programs, and legislation would be pursued to the fullest, to reduce both the volume and toxicity of the waste remaining,
2. Then, for the waste which remains, recycling and composting facilities and programs would be designed to maximize recovery of those recyclable and compostable materials left in the waste stream after reduction, and to maximize the recycling of wastes containing toxic constituents,
3. Incinerators, equipped with the state-of-the-art technology and operated in optimal fashion at all times to minimize toxic emissions, would be designed to accommodate the wastes which are not reduced, reused, recycled, or composted. Slightly lower in the hierarchy are incinerators without energy recovery, and as a last resort,
4. Landfilling would be restricted only for residues from recycling, composting, and incineration processes.
The hierarchy was devised to reflect the relative desirability of each method, from an environmental point-of-view. Methods, such as recycling, composting, reuse, and waste reduction lessen or eliminate many of the environmental impacts for landfilling and incineration (described below), and were considered environmentally preferable to them. The hierarchy of management options was arranged with the recognition that no single method could or should be used to the exclusion of all others, as had been the case with landfilling or incineration.
Despite the fact that these were the two least used methods to manage solid wastes, EPA stated that in order for there to be adequate management of wastes in the future, it would be necessary:
(1) to maximize source reduction and reuse of consumer products, for example, manufacture and purchase by consumers of less packaging, fewer disposables, and more durables, and
(2) to maximize the amount of materials diverted from the waste stream for recycling.
The
In order to achieve these waste prevention and recycling goals, it would be necessary to put into place extensive recycling infrastructure (for collection, sorting, processing, and manufacturing recycled-content products). But equally important, increasing recycling rates and decreasing waste generation rates requires instituting social engineering systems (i.e., programs, legislation, and incentives that motivate citizens and companies to separate materials for recycling and to adopt a set of behaviors that would result in a lower waste generation rate). A key focus of social engineering systems would be to convince consumers to change their purchasing habits so that they reliably buy (and demand) reusable, durable, less toxic, recycled, and recyclable products and packaging. However, although reduction and recycling are the preferred waste management methods, and all levels of government have agreed on these objectives (and even the average citizen typically responds positively to environmental polls and questionnaires), there is little hard data on consumer willingness to override other considerations in purchasing (e.g., convenience, price, brand, attractiveness, etc...) and buy “green”. Since consumers have the ultimate power to implement prevention and recycling, it is important that they receive adequate education in these areas and be motivated to change their habits. This is the focus of the present study.
In addition to the fact that government and environmental organizations have supported the hierarchy, and that it is legislatively required in some places, there are short- and long-term environmental reasons for promoting waste prevention and recycling methods. For every ton of waste recycled, there is one less ton that would otherwise be disposed of in incinerators and/or landfills with their impacts to air, water, and land. The same is true for every ton of waste that is not generated in the first place, or that undergoes reuse or refurbishment into like-new product. Wastes collected and shipped by fossil fuel-driven trucks, barges and trains cause impacts to air, water and land, consume water and energy resources, resulting in traffic congestion and accidents. Waste prevention reduces or avoids all these impacts. Use of garbage trucks requires siting of transfer stations, which are noisy and dusty, involving more congestion. Thus, waste prevention and recycling directly reduce environmental impacts caused by landfilling and incineration.
One
of the main arguments for placement of waste prevention and recycling at the
top of the solid waste management hierarchy, is that the environmental costs of
production are several times greater than the environmental costs of solid
waste management.[3] Long-term environmental impacts are reduced
by recycling, reuse and reduction (the 3 R’s), because fewer virgin resources
are needed to manufacture a smaller quantity of products and packaging. The 3
R’s preserve some or all of the intrinsic nature of discarded items (e.g., the
product value, natural resources), whereas they are largely lost when landfilled or incinerated. For example, simple waste
prevention practices, like using less paper by copying double-sided, or
bringing a reusable bag to the supermarket, avoid the need to mine as much oil
or harvest as many trees, thus preserving those natural resources.
The
new, evolving technique of lifecycle assessment suggests that production of
packaging and products involves depletion of resources (energy, mineral,
natural, and water), and impacts to all environmental media (air, water, land,
life) generated by resources extraction, shipping, refining, manufacture, and
marketing. All of these impacts are
minimized by reducing production, and by reusing and recycling packaging and products. A crude estimate of important environmental
benefits associated with producing a ton of paper made from 100% recycled waste
paper instead of virgin fiber, indicates a saving of 17 trees, 7,000 gallons of
water, 60 pounds of air emissions, and 4100 kwh of
energy, and consumes 30% - 55% less energy than making it from virgin
pulp. The important environmental
benefit on the waste disposal end of the lifecycle that occurs when recycled,
rather than virgin fiber is used in production, is the savings of roughly three
cubic yards of landfill space per ton and the emissions and leachate
which production of that ton of paper would have produced.[4] Environmental costs (i.e., emissions, ashfill space) would be avoided if the paper had not gone
to an incinerator.
From
a system-wide view, recycled production plus recycling produces the lowest
emissions of all but one of the major categories of air pollutants. For
example, it has been found that incinerator stack emissions of heavy metals are
several orders of magnitude higher than those from operations of materials
recovery facilities (recycling sorting plants).
Recycling at a 26% rate reduces methane emissions by an amount equal to
24.2% of total methane emissions from all
Thus,
on the front end of the product lifecycle, for every ton of product or package
that is not generated to due waste prevention systems and recycling, fewer
natural resources (e.g., fossil-fuels, metals, water, soil, forests) are
consumed (and in some cases, irreversibly depleted). For each ton of product not manufactured due
to waste prevention efforts, there are numerous avoided environmental costs to
air, water, land, and ecosystems (e.g., in the extraction of natural resources,
their refining, manufacturing, packaging, marketing, and transporting these
from their sources in the environment to refineries, manufacturing plants and
to distributors, markets, and consumers).
In the case of composting, resources are not only preserved, but soil
resources are restored to the environment.
On
the back end of the lifecycle, recycling and waste prevention results in a net
reduction of emissions, effluents, and leachate, and
prevents degradation of land caused by incineration and landfilling. Methods such as reduction and recycling
decrease the amount of waste requiring disposal, reducing the amount of land
resource impacted. If, as part of an
overall waste prevention strategy, reduction in the use of toxic constituents
is achieved, the quantity of toxics emitted into the air and introduced into
the ash from incinerators is reduced.
Landfilling is
lowest on the hierarchy, and is considered to have the greatest environmental
impacts, because it produces impacts to air, water, and land, but also because
the energy, mineral, water, and other natural resources utilized in production
of products and packaging are largely wasted when the product is disposed in
landfill. Modern incineration also
involves impacts to air and, to a lesser extent, to water, as well as to land
in the management of ash residue, recovers some energy resource, but, loses the
natural resources and production value in the materials and products when they
are burned. Recycling and certain reuse
processes (e.g., remanufacturing of durable products) also have environmental
impacts (e.g., due to processing and/or refining of the recyclable or reusable
materials). However, since recycling,
remanufacturing and reuse processes obviate the need for extraction and
refinement of virgin materials, this environmental benefit offsets some of the
environmental impacts caused by recycling, remanufacturing and reuse processes. In addition, recycling and reuse options
retain the intrinsic value of the materials (e.g., paper, wood, glass, metal)
and products processed. As great as the
savings in natural resources and avoidance of environmental degradation are
with recycling, waste prevention saves even more since fewer products and less
packaging are made in the first place, and more of the environmental costs of
both production and waste collection and processing are avoided. Source reduction practices reduce waste
generation at the source, and they typically eliminate the need for extraction
of resources, refinement, manufacturing, and product transport, as well as need
for collection, treatment, shipping, and disposal of wastes. As a result, waste prevention and recycling
create fewer net environmental impacts than do incineration and landfilling.
The
predominant method of solid waste management in the
The
intrinsic value of the materials and products disposed in landfills is
lost. Most landfills produce a myriad of
impacts to the ground and surface water quality and water supplies, due to the
leaching of organic acids, heavy metals and other compounds. Landfills also emit large quantities of
greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide and trace amounts of many
toxic carcinogens such as vinyl chloride and benzene. The extent of environmental
impacts has been significant, having been responsible for contamination of
community water supplies. Landfills are
also considered to be a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions
globally. The emissions from landfills
and their local impacts on human health and their long-term, global impacts on
climate are now being assessed.
Over
the years the technology of landfilling has
progressed slowly from the most basic, inexpensive and rudimentary dumping to
state-of-the-art “Sanitary Landfill” which employs a daily cover of soil,
multiple liner systems, leachate collection and
treatment systems, leak detection, landfill gas collection and treatment
systems, and air quality monitoring.
Occasionally, landfill gas utilization equipment is installed to make
use of the natural gas extracted from the landfill. When the newer environmental controls are
used, the environmental impacts are lessened, but this transition is still in
process, as government regulations are under development. As more is learned about
the extent of air quality impacts from landfills, and as New Source Performance
Standards for landfills are phased in over the coming years, it is likely that
landfills will become harder to site. Landfilling will become more expensive, and continue to
decline. USEPA predicts that although
the tonnage of waste going to landfills will increase in absolute terms from
118,390 in 1995 to 119,080 in 2000 to 125,370 in 2010 along with increasing
population and per capita generation rates, landfilling
as a percentage of waste generated will fall further, from 56.9% in 1995 to
53.7% in 2000, to 49.6% in 2010. [7] For more discussion about the processes
associated with and the environmental and health impacts of landfills, see
Appendix L.
The advent of the
solid waste hierarchy occurred almost contemporaneously with the transition
from the old-style incinerators (i.e., those that do not recover energy, and do
not have advanced emission control systems) to today’s state-of-the-art
incinerators. Also at this time the
public began to recognize an increasing severity of global and local
environmental deterioration, engendering a rising public displeasure against
incinerators and a call for increased prevention, recycling, and
composting. Some plans for new
waste-to-energy (WTE) plants in the
Incineration
rates have been inconsistent over the last few decades. In 1960 incineration (albeit in antiquated
low-efficiency units) burned 31% of the Municipal Solid Waste (
The environmental
benefits from incineration fall into just a few categories. Energy is recovered in WTE plants (usually in
the form of electricity, but occasionally in the form of steam). It is a small fraction of the amount of the energy
consumed in the extraction, transportation, production, and marketing of the
products and packaging consumed in the incinerator. Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) plants are designed
to extract glass and metals, via automated means, for recycling from the waste
stream prior to incineration. The
predominantly paper and plastic waste that remains is prepared into fluff or
pellets of RDF for incineration. Mass
burn plants (that burn unsorted
The environmental impacts from incineration mainly result from emissions and ash, but the loss of the intrinsic value of the products and materials fed to the incinerator should not be overlooked. Incineration of a heterogeneous waste stream results in emissions of heavy metals (e.g., mercury, lead, cadmium, and chromium), toxic chlorinated and other organic compounds (e.g., chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, dioxins, and furans), acid gases (e.g., HCl, SO2, NOx and HF), carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. These contribute to ground-level ozone and acid rain, as well as to urban air quality problems. Both mercury and dioxin are seen as global pollutants, and EPA has targeted incinerators as a major contributor to both contaminants. The predominant emissions from incinerators (CO2 and water vapor) are not locally deleterious to the environment, but contribute to global impacts from greenhouse gases. State-of-the-art incinerator technologies, designed to burn wastes efficiently and to reduce emissions as much as technologically feasible, and operating practices, to maximize combustion and emission control efficiency, advanced rapidly during the 1980s and early 1990s. Appendix I provides more detail on incinerator emissions and technologies to minimize them.
Incinerator ash is
created when wastes are burned. The
wastes, consisting largely of metals, glass and ceramics, do not burn and
become part of the bottom ash. More
combustible wastes, such as paper and plastics, food, yard waste, and wood, are
predominantly organic in nature, producing CO2 and water vapor. These wastes also contain impurities such as
chlorine, nitrogen, and heavy metals, which contribute to emissions and leave
the incinerator or are captured in emissions control devices. The captured emissions mix with reagents used
in emissions control and become fly ash. Fly ash typically contains more heavy
metals than bottom ash, and is therefore more toxic. For this reason, European incinerators are
configured to keep the two ash streams separate so that the fly ash may be
treated as a special waste. In the
From the national perspective, recycling and composting are used to manage 27% of the waste stream as of 1995 [9]. Recovery of materials was estimated to be 22.4% for recycling and 4.6% for composting in 1995, projected to rise to 24.8% and 5.3% respectively in 2000, and to 29.15 and 5.9% respectively in 2010, up from 17% for both combined in 1990. The growth of recycling is illustrated in the per capita amount of discards after recycling and composting, which has started to decrease after having peaked at 3.59 pounds per person per day in 1990. This is projected to fall to 3.03 pounds per person per day in 2010, again reaching the 1970 level of 3.04 lb/person/day.[10] This indicates the inroads these two waste management methods are projected to have in offsetting increases in waste generation rates in the near future. However, it is not likely that increases in recycling and composting alone can offset increases in waste generation indefinitely.
The national
recycling figure of 27% underestimates what has been achieved in many
localities that have higher state or local recycling, composting, and reduction
requirements or goals. Some states
(e.g.,
As large as these
diversion rates may seem, the ultimate potential for recycling and composting,
assuming intensive programs designed to address as many categories of
materials, products, and packaging as possible, and to educate the general
public and businesses to the greatest extent feasible, is quite a bit
higher. An extensive 46 material-sort
waste composition study done for the New York City Sanitation Department in
1989/1990 showed that 80% of that city’s waste stream was recyclable or compostable and some additional quantity was reusable or
repairable.[12] Half the recyclables were to be targeted in
the initial basic curbside program (i.e., newspapers, magazines, corrugated
cardboard, plastic bottles and jugs, glass jars, and metal cans), and the rest
(food and yard waste, other plastics, other papers, etc…) were to be tested in
intensive recycling pilot programs. By
late 1993 NYCDOS had instituted the basic curbside program citywide, and by
1997 the NYCDOS had added mixed papers, phone books, bulk metal items, gray
cardboard, and ‘wax paper’ cartons. At
present, a majority of
Waste prevention
Despite
the changes in the common perception of the causes of the solid waste crisis,
from landfill space depletion to incinerator impacts, one truth remains: the amount of waste being generated is
continuing to increase. The per capita generation
of
Looked
at from a historical perspective, in 1960 only 88 million tons of
Table 1
Projections of Population, Goods and Packaging
Generated in the
|
|
1995 |
2000 |
2010 |
|
|
262.76 |
274.63 |
297.72 |
|
Durable
Goods* (millions of tons) |
31.23 |
33.94 |
38.29 |
|
Nondurable
Goods ** (millions of tons) |
57.04 |
62.14 |
72.72 |
|
Packaging
and Containers (millions of tons) |
72.86 |
80.49 |
94.89 |
|
Other
wastes *** (millions of tons) |
46.92 |
45.10 |
47.10 |
|
Total
(millions of tons) |
208.05 |
221.67 |
253.00 |
* Durables are goods designed to last at least three
years (U.S. Commerce Dept. definition)
** Nondurables are
designed to last less than three years, and may be disposables or single-use
items.
*** Other wastes are predominantly food and yard
wastes.
Table 2 Projections
of Recyclables Generated in the
(millions
of tons)
|
|
1995 |
2000 |
2010 |
|
Paper |
81.54 |
89.74 |
105.69 |
|
Plastics |
18.99 |
20.96 |
24.66 |
|
Glass |
12.83 |
13.51 |
14.54 |
|
Metals |
15.85 |
16.85 |
18.48 |
|
Food |
14.02 |
14.70 |
16.10 |
|
Yard
Waste |
29.75 |
27.10 |
27.40 |
|
Wood |
14.86 |
16.55 |
19.61 |
|
Rubber
& Leather |
6.03 |
6.64 |
7.86 |
|
Textiles |
7.40 |
8.42 |
10.72 |
Despite
the fact that waste prevention is needed, and that it has been designated the most
preferred waste management solution in the hierarchy, it receives the least
funding for research as well as for implementation. Recycling has become a household word, but
source reduction, reuse, and waste prevention are misunderstood by the public. Municipal waste management departments have
traditionally preferred to have uncomplicated, “silver bullet” disposal
solutions, of which the agency is in complete control. Landfilling was
simple, and, relative to recycling, waste-to-energy was seen to be a
straightforward solution. Both disposal
options involved feeding unprocessed waste onto the ground or into a
furnace. Sanitation departments
initially resisted recycling and composting because they required cooperation
by the public, new types of trucks, processing stations, and marketing of
secondary materials, much of which was new and unfamiliar. But over the last ten years or so, some
barriers to instituting recycling have been overcome as the public has come to
support it, though lack of optimization in integrated collection systems and
lack of perseverance and innovation in educating the public have been construed
to make recycling seem less economically attractive than it could be.
Waste
prevention involves reducing the generation of waste by a myriad of methods in
which both consumers and manufacturers participate. Examples of these include:
·
maximizing the
manufacture, purchase, use and repair of products and packaging that has lower
volume and/or toxicity, higher durability, and
·
optimizing the design of
products and packaging for repair, reuse, and recyclability,
and reducing purchases of disposables and their packaging.
EPA expressed an interest in this
area, and stated in 1989 that in order to attain the national goal of 25% reduction
and recycling of
(1) government initiatives will have to be created on the state and local levels,
(2) government and industry will have to establish markets for recyclables, and
(3) household, government, and industry attitudes and behaviors will have to change to increase availability and purchase of products and packaging that promote source reduction and recyclability.
In a report on the subject of promoting source reduction and recyclability in the marketplace[15], EPA stated that more research is necessary in this area since the relationships between education and change in behaviors is complex and poorly understood. Such research would provide industry, government, and consumer groups with greater understanding with which to design more effective strategies for promoting source reduction and recyclability of products and packaging. Examples of research that EPA believes is necessary include the following:
· design of informational strategies to promote intrinsic (satisfaction-based) motives to conserve,
· design of strategies which combine intrinsic and extrinsic (incentive-based) motives to produce more durable behavioral change,
· determination of variables, not directly related to attitudes, which affect consumer behavior, and
· determination of the degree to which an increase in consumers' quality of life results from adopting environmentally-appropriate behavior.
Since
the EPA made these recommendations in the late 1980s, relatively little has
been done, by EPA or others, to educate the public in this area. As a result, waste prevention is often
confused with recycling. Despite
evidence that waste prevention programs are considered to be more cost-effective
than any other waste management solution because there is no need for
collection, processing or disposal infrastructure,[16]
governments at all levels have consistently placed waste prevention programs at
the bottom of their spending priorities.
As a result of this lack of funding, waste prevention remains a major
frontier in solid waste management research.
See Appendix R for more detail on waste prevention methods.
General
Research Objectives
In
order to address the clear need for a greater understanding of and motivation
to implement waste prevention, this project was conceived as a means
·
To research, design and
implement, at a small number of appropriate venues in
·
To evaluate this method
of imparting information and motivating consumers to change their purchasing
patterns to reduce waste and increase recycling potential, and
·
To measure and compare
the absolute and relative effectiveness of
two alternative testing programs using standard statistical techniques.
Specific objectives and parameters for this project are:
· To design and test the effectiveness of two environmental shopping campaigns, which would educate shoppers about the relationship between their actions and the environment, specifically, on the merits of their purchases, as they pertain to solid waste prevention and recycling, providing shoppers with information about alternative purchases and their relative environmental impacts,
· To develop more specific information on effective consumer education techniques (i.e., those which produce measurable results) than that available heretofore, so that more effective in-store environmental education programs might be implemented. Such features of a successful and replicable in-store educational program would include the type, quantity, and distribution of brochures, signage and other educational devices, as well as methods of communication with store management to maximize the visibility of educational materials,
· To document whether, and under what circumstances, consumers will put into practice source reduction and recycling objectives learned as a result of educational programs conducted in stores as demonstrated by their purchases of consumer products at retail stores,
· To measure any changes in consumer awareness of and attitudes towards environmental issues before and after being educated about the solid waste management implications of their purchases in retail stores,
· To determine the features of a successful and replicable in-store educational program (e.g., type, quantity, and distribution of signage, environmental criteria used, questionnaires, methods of communication with store management, etc.) and
·
To test whether and the extent to which
environmental shopping can be successfully taught in small, crowded
This investigation should facilitate a much-needed glimpse into consumer attitudes and behaviors, a very important factor in the success of waste prevention and recycling measures. Specifically, this program design should provide an indication of environmental attitudes of shoppers, and whether, and to what extent, their attitudes and behaviors can be modified as a result of environmental shopping education campaigns or ongoing programs, and what it takes to make those changes. Other useful information to be acquired will include the effects of demographics on attitudes and purchasing behavior before vs. after the education, where consumers get their environmental information, and how sophisticated the shoppers are before vs. after the education. Perhaps most important, this study design should permit the acquisition and analysis of data on the effectiveness of alternative environmental shopping educational programs in an inner city environment. These results should provide a contribution to the existing body of knowledge in this field.
To
assist, financially, in this endeavor, a solid waste research and demonstration
grant was procured in 1991 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
II. The original deadline for the
project’s completion was early 1993, and this was extended to late 1994 (which
did affect the scheduling of the educational campaign). The financial conduit, the Environmental
Action Coalition, participated by attracting volunteers to collect survey
data. The benefits of the research will
be provided not only to EPA, but also should be helpful in communicating
effective consumer education techniques to municipalities and states desiring
to implement consumer education programs to maximize reduction and
recycling. The information from this
investigation should also be of value to those in private sector supermarkets
and chains in predicting the success of new environmental shopping programs
they might institute. Where there are
already existing environmental shopping programs, the information produced by this
study could improve the effectiveness of such programs. Thus, the results will be provided to
industry trade associations, such as the Food Marketing Institute, which could
distribute it to their member stores. Finally,
it is intended that the results of this study will be communicated to the
research communities involved with solid waste prevention and management as
well as environmental behavioral research.
The
balance of this dissertation will describe the research hypotheses and review
literature pertaining to consumer psychology, environmental attitudes and
behaviors, and previously-conducted environmental shopping campaigns (Chapter
2), the methodology by which the environmental shopping campaigns and the modes
of their evaluation were designed (Chapter 3) and implemented (Chapter 4), the
presentation and analysis of the results (Chapter 5), the comparison of the
results with other, similar research (Chapter 6), and conclusions and
recommendations made based on the results.
Chapter 1
Chapter 2 Chapter 3
Chapter
4 Chapter
5 Chapter
6 Chapter
7
[1] "The
Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda For Action", Report of the Municipal Solid
Waste Task Force, Office of Solid Waste, US Environmental Protection Agency,
February, 1989.
[2] New York State Solid Waste Management Plan, 1987-88 update. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Solid Waste, March 1988.
[3] Schall, John. "Production and Disposal Impacts of
Packaging Materials: a Critique of the Tellus
Institute Study", Panel Discussion at the 8th Annual Conference on Solid
Waste Management and Materials Policy, New York, NY.
[4] "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update", USEPA Municipal and Solid Waste Division, EPA/530-S-94-042, November, 1994.
[5] Denison, Richard A. “Environmental Life-Cycle Comparisons of Recycling, Landfilling, and Incineration: A Review of Recent Studies”., Annual Reviews Energy Environment. Volume 21, pp. 191-237. 1996.
[6] "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1996 Update", USEPA Municipal and Solid Waste Division, EPA/530-R-97-015, June 1997.
[7] "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1996 Update", USEPA Municipal and Solid Waste Division, EPA/530-R-97-015, June 1997.
[8] "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1996 Update", USEPA Municipal and Solid Waste Division, EPA/530-R-97-015, June 1997.
[9] "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1996 Update", USEPA Municipal and Solid Waste Division, EPA/530-R-97-015, June 1997.
[10] "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1996 Update", USEPA Municipal and Solid Waste Division, EPA/530-R-97-015, June 1997.
[11] Clarke, Marjorie. “Municipal Solid Waste Management: The Integrated Approach”, a video by Air and Waste Management Association, 1994.
[12] A Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for New York City and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix Volume 1.2 Waste Stream Data, New York City Department of Sanitation. August 1992.
[13] Larry Cipollina,
“Residential Recycling Diversion Report for June 1998”, NYCDOS Memorandum.
[14] "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1996 Update", USEPA Municipal and Solid Waste Division, EPA/530-R-97-015, June 1997.
[15] "Promoting
Source Reduction and Recyclability in the
Marketplace: A Study of Consumer and
Industry Response to Promotion of Source Reduced, Recycled, and Recyclable
Products and Packaging", prepared for Richard M. Kashmanian,
USEPA, Washington, DC September, 1989.
[16] A Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for New York City and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, New York City Department of Sanitation. August 1992.