Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 163170

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities

Shauque F. Sidique a, , Frank Lupi b , Satish V. Joshi b
a
b

Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Department of Agriculture, Food and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 27 April 2008
Received in revised form 19 January 2009
Accepted 22 July 2009
Available online 25 August 2009
Keywords:
Recycling
Drop-off programs
Drop-off sites
Curbside programs
Waste management
Recycling behavior

a b s t r a c t
To reduce the amount of waste entering landlls, policymakers and governments have implemented
various recycling and waste reduction programs such as source reduction, curbside recycling and dropoff recycling programs. The success of a recycling program largely depends on household participation and
sorting activities. A better understanding of recycling behavior will help us aid the design and improve the
effectiveness of recycling policies. This paper studies the prole of people who utilize drop-off recycling
sites and analyzes the factors inuencing their site usage. The results show that the usage of drop-off
recycling sites is inuenced by demographic factors such as age, education, income and household size.
Attitudinal factors are also found to affect site usage. Recyclers tend to use the drop-off sites more when
they feel that recycling is a convenient activity and when they are more familiar with the sites.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In 2007, United States residents, businesses, and institutions
produced approximately 254 million tons of municipal solid waste
and more than 50% of the solid waste generated was landlled
(USEPA, 2007). To reduce the amount of waste entering landlls, local governments have implemented numerous recycling and
waste reduction programs, including source reduction, variable
garbage pricing, curbside recycling and drop-off recycling.
Drop-off recycling is a recycling program where designated sites
are established to collect a range of recyclables and usually recyclers
themselves are required to deposit the sorted recyclables in specially marked containers. Drop-off recycling centers are less costly
to operate compared to curbside programs, and they are also faster
to implement than take-back and deposit refund programs involving manufacturers (Saphores et al., 2006). Drop-off center operators
are able to save on labor and transportation costs because these
costs are transferred to the recyclers. Drop-off recycling is also considered to be a nancially viable recycling option in rural areas with
low population density (Tiller et al., 1997). As a result, drop-off recycling is a widely adopted recycling program by local governments.
As of 1998, over 12,000 recyclable drop-off sites were operating in
the United States (USEPA, 2000).
Despite wide implementation, relatively little literature analyzes drop-off recycling. Research on curbside recycling and

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shauque@econ.upm.edu.my (S.F. Sidique).
0921-3449/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.07.012

variable garbage pricing is more popular in the eld of recycling and

waste management. For example, Fullerton and Kinnaman (1996),
Hong and Adams (1999), Van Houtven and Morris (1999), Kinnaman
and Fullerton (2000) and Jenkins et al. (2003) analyze the effect of
curbside recycling, together with variable garbage pricing, on the
amount of waste generation and recycling. Hong and Adams (1999)
study the effect of disposal fee and household characteristics on
recycling rates and waste generation using household data from
Portland, Oregon and nd that an increase in the price of solid waste
collection increases both the demand for recycling and recycling
rates. Hong (1999) reports similar results for a household sample
from Korea. Kinnaman and Fullerton (2000) nd that an unit fee
has a negative effect on garbage weight, and curbside recycling
programs have a positive effect on recycling. Other studies have
estimated the consumer willingness to pay for curbside recycling
services (Lake et al., 1996; Aadland and Caplan, 1999, 2003; Blaine
et al., 2005).
A rare example of recycling research that is related to drop-off
recycling is the stated preference study of a drop-off program conducted by Tiller et al. (1997). Their study analyzed the economic
feasibility of establishing a drop-off recycling program in a rural
and suburban area of Tennessee by utilizing the contingent valuation method to calculate household willingness to pay (WTP)
for the program. They found that the estimated WTP depended on
respondents income, education level, age and attitudes towards
the importance of recycling. However, the study was based on
stated preferences of households and not on observed behavior
or revealed preference. Speirs and Tucker (2001) studied the prole of recyclers utilizing drop-off recycling sites in Glasgow and

164

S.F. Sidique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 163170

across Ayrshire in south-west Scotland. They report recyclers travel

distances, the weights and types of recyclables and demographic
characteristics. However, the study is mainly descriptive and does
not analyze the relationship between drop-off site utilization and
the prole of recyclers. Similarly, the Ohio EPA conducted a study of
participation rates and usage patterns of recyclers at drop-off sites
in Ohio in 2004 (Snyder et al., 2004). The primary purpose of the
study was to assess the percentage of population in a waste management district with access to recycling facilities to see whether it
met the set targets and the reported results are mainly descriptive
statistics. Saphores et al. (2006) analysis of households willingness
to recycle at drop-off centers is limited to electronic waste.
We address this gap in the literature by studying individuals utilizing drop-off recycling. We conducted onsite interviews
of recyclers using eight drop-off recycling centers around the city
of Lansing in Michigan. We statistically analyze the relationship
between the number of visits made to drop-off recycling sites and
recycler characteristics and their attitudes towards recycling. The
ndings provide insights into recycling behavior that can be used to
improve the design and effectiveness of drop-off recycling policies.
2. Literature review
The success of a drop-off recycling program is largely dependent on household participation and sorting activities which are the
essential behaviors. Prior research indicates that recycling behavior is inuenced by cost of recycling, convenience of available
recycling infrastructure and programs, the extent of environment
related awareness and knowledge, attitudes towards recycling,
social norms and external pressures, and household socioeconomic
status. These results are typically based on surveys of both recyclers
and non-recyclers and the reported differences between these two
groups (Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Oskamp et al., 1991; Ebreo and
Vining, 2001).
As recycling requires investment of time, space, money and
effort, making recycling convenient should increase household
participation. Domina and Koch (2002) in their study of textile
recycling behavior report that convenience is an important driver
of recycling behavior. Vining and Ebreo (1990) examine the differences between recyclers and non-recyclers and conclude that
non-recyclers were deterred by the inconvenience and the costs
associated with recycling. Saphores et al. (2006) study households
willingness to recycle electronic waste at drop-off centers and nd
that convenience factors such as proximity to the drop-off center
increased recycling. Hornik et al. (1995), based on a meta-analysis,
conclude that frequency of recyclables collection was a strong
predictor of recycling behavior. Gonzalez-Torre et al. (2003) examine selective waste collection systems that are frequently used in
Europe and America and conclude that a system that requires less
time and effort to dispose and separate waste will result in a higher
recycling rate.
Concern for the environment is perceived to be important in
encouraging recycling participation, but empirical studies have
shown mixed results. Domina and Koch (2002) nd that people who
have great concern for the environment are more likely to recycle.
Meneses and Palacio (2005) study the distribution of recycling tasks
within the household, and report that household members with
positive attitudes towards ecology and who are motivated to protect
the environment shared a greater burden of the recycling. However,
Vining and Ebreo (1990) nd that concern for the environment was
indiscriminately expressed by both recyclers and non-recyclers.
Similarly, Oskamp et al. (1991) did not nd signicant differences
between recyclers and non-recyclers in their general pro-ecological
attitudes and beliefs in the seriousness of environmental problems.
Knowledge about the availability of recycling programs and
facilities is necessary for effective participation in recycling. Stud-

ies have found that knowledge about recycling programs is a strong

predictor of recycling involvement (Gamba and Oskamp, 1994;
Hornik et al., 1995). Vining and Ebreo (1990) nd that recyclers were
more aware of the publicity associated with recycling and more
knowledgeable about the recycling facilities in the local area. Other
studies have tried to analyze the role of knowledge about the environment in recycling behavior. Oskamp et al. (1991) report that the
level of knowledge about conservation is a good predictor of participation in recycling. Studies have also investigated the effect social
inuence has on recycling behavior. Social inuence in this context
is dened as an individuals concern about the perception of others, such as family and neighbors if they do not recycle (Vining and
Ebreo, 1990). Oskamp et al. (1991) and Do Valle et al. (2004) report
that social inuence is an important driver of recycling behavior, but
Vining and Ebreo (1990) do not nd social inuence to be signicant
in explaining recycling behavior.
Apart from behavioral aspects, numerous studies have also
looked at the relationship between demographic and socioeconomic variables and recycling involvement. The most commonly
examined variables are gender, age, education and income
(Saphores et al., 2006). Meneses and Palacio (2005) argue that
women bore a greater burden of recycling tasks than men in a
household, while Arcury et al. (1987) suggest that women are usually associated with recycling tasks because they traditionally have
played a greater role in domestic tasks. Saphores et al. (2006) nd
that women are more willing to recycle electronic waste at dropoff centers. However, other studies nd no link between gender and
recycling (Gamba and Oskamp, 1994; Werner and Makela, 1998).
Some studies nd age to be a signicant factor inuencing recycling involvement (Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Gamba and Oskamp,
1994; Margai, 1997; Scott, 1999; Saphores et al., 2006), while some
other studies do not (Werner and Makela, 1998; Meneses and
Palacio, 2005). Contrary to common expectation that younger people are likely to be more involved in recycling, some researchers
conclude that middle aged and older people are more likely to recycle (Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Meneses and Palacio, 2005; Saphores
et al., 2006).
The relationship between education and recycling is ambiguous.
Saphores et al. (2006) nd that higher education increases the willingness to recycle, but several other studies report that education
has no signicant effect on recycling behavior (Vining and Ebreo,
1990; Oskamp et al., 1991; Gamba and Oskamp, 1994; Meneses and
Palacio, 2005). Some studies nd a positive relationship between
income level and recycling involvement (Vining and Ebreo, 1990;
Oskamp et al., 1991; Gamba and Oskamp, 1994), but a study by Scott
(1999) nds no statistically signicant relationship.
3. Research objectives and hypotheses
The above review suggests that there are mixed ndings
about the drivers of recycling behavior. One likely reason for
such mixed results is the lack of correspondence between the
attitudinal and behavioral entities. Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) conclude from a review of a number of attitudebehavior studies
that when elements (i.e. target, action, context and time) of the
attitudinal entity corresponded to elements of the behavioral
entity, attitudebehavior correlations were quite high and signicant, and when correspondence was either partial or lacking,
attitudebehavior correlations were insignicant. Generalizing on
Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) ndings, we conjecture that these mixed
ndings about drivers of recycling behavior are because of lack of
correspondence between the specic elements of recycling behavior and presumed drivers of such behavior. For example, in many
of these studies, measures of attitudes towards the environment
and environmental knowledge were very broad and general, while
the behavioral entity (i.e. recycling behavior) being measured was

S.F. Sidique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 163170

very specic. In other words there was no correspondence between

the target and action elements of the entities. Similarly, in household surveys of recycling behavior, the time and context elements
of the recycling behavior are not specic; the respondent may not
be the actual recycler, and reported behavior may be different from
actual behavior depending on the context. Further because of the
different action, context and timing elements of drop-off recycling
compared to other forms of recycling, the ndings from other recycling behavior studies may not be directly applicable to drop-off
recycling.
The main objective of this study is to analyze the inuence
of socioeconomic, demographic and behavioral factors on dropoff site visits. The behavioral aspects examined are environmental
afliation, perception and attitudes towards drop-off recycling and
implications of such recycling on the environment. This study also
analyzes the effect of drop-off site distance from home on site visits. To address the limitations of other studies, we specically target
recyclers recycling at drop-off centers. Our measure of recycling
behavior is the number of such visits to the drop-off centers, and our
interviews were aimed at measuring attitudes specically towards
recycling activities and knowledge about drop-off recycling, along
with other demographic and socioeconomic variables. By establishing such a correspondence, we expect our results to be more robust
compared to earlier ndings.
Drawing on the ndings in earlier literature, we propose the
following hypotheses and then test them empirically:
H1. Longer distance to recycling sites from home reduces the
number of recycling visits.
H2. Increase in the number of different types of recyclables
brought to a site increases the number of site visits.
H3. Higher time required to sort recyclables reduces the number
of site visits.
H4. Access to curbside recycling reduces the number of site visits.
H5. Demographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, education and employment status inuences the number of site visits.
H6. Afliation with an environmental organization increases the
number of site visits.
Since attitudes towards recycling and awareness about recycling of the respondents cannot be directly observed, a scale was
developed to measure attitudes towards recycling consisting of 18
Likert-scale items covering various aspects of recycling, such as
convenience, attitude, social pressure and awareness or familiarity. The assumption is that such a specic recycling attitude scale
provides a better correspondence with recycling behavior being
measured than commonly used general environmental attitude
measures such as the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap
et al., 2000). We hypothesize that increased convenience, positive attitude towards recycling, positive social pressure and higher
familiarity will be positively associated with the number of visits
to the recycling center.
4. Methods
Since we sought to analyze the effects of recycler characteristics on the number of drop-off site visits, we conducted a survey
of drop-off site visitors. This section describes the survey design
and data collection process. This section also reports the descriptive statistics of the variables of interest. We also conducted factor
analysis to reduce the number of our attitudinal variables into a few
interpretable factors that were later operationalized as explanatory
variables in our statistical model of drop-off site visits.

165

4.1. Questionnaire design and data collection

The data for this study was collected through in-person interviews conducted at eight drop-off recycling sites around the Lansing
area in Michigan. The interviews included questions on the frequency of visits to drop-off sites in the past three months and one
year. Respondents home address was elicited to enable calculation
of respondents travel distances to the recycling site. The survey
also contained questions soliciting demographic information of the
respondent such as gender, education, employment status income
and marital status. Questions were asked about the respondents
other recycling options as such curbside recycling at their residence,
the types of recyclables they brought onsite, and the time they took
to sort the recyclables they had brought during the visit. A question
asked if the respondents were afliated with any environmental organization (government or non-governmental environmental
organizations included). The survey also included a set of questions
assessing the respondents attitudes towards recycling. In answering these questions, respondents were read statements and asked to
indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statements on a ve-point Likert-scale ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree.
The questionnaire was pretested and improved before conducting the actual survey. The questionnaire pretest was conducted
by interviewing several recyclers at one of the drop-off sites. The
pretest resulted in some wording renements and rearrangement
of questions in the instrument. The nal survey was conducted for
four weeks, from the last week of October 2006 to the last week of
November 2006. Interviews were conducted at each site four times,
during 3 h intervals each time throughout the four-week period.
The survey dates chosen for all the sites were randomly selected
to avoid any potential bias. During the survey, recyclers visiting the
sites were approached for interviews. At the end of the survey, we
approached 527 recyclers and managed to complete 356 interviews
for a 68% response rate.
4.2. Variables description
Table 1 lists and denes the demographic and other related
variables that were utilized in our analysis. The variables THREEMTHS and ONEYEAR are the number of visits to the drop-off site
where the respondent was interviewed in the past three months
and one year. The variable DISTANCE represents the roundtrip distance from the respondents home to the recycling site where the
respondent was interviewed. The roundtrip distance was computed
using MapQuest (www.mapquest.com). The variable CURBSIDE is a
dummy variable indicating if the respondents had access to curbside recycling pickup at their home. The recyclers came from several
townships and curbside recycling service was offered only in some
Table 1
Denition of variables.
Variable

Denition

THREEMTHS
ONEYEAR
DISTANCE
NUMREC
SORTIME
CURBSIDE
CDEGREE
INCOME
HSIZE
AGE
MALE
MARRIED
FULLEMP
ENVAFF

Total number of site visits in the last three months

Total number of site visits in the last one year
Total round-trip distance from home to site
Number of different types of recyclables brought onsite
Time taken (in minutes) to sort recyclables brought
Access to curbside recycling (yes = 1, no = 0)
Educated with a bachelors degree or higher (yes = 1, no = 0)
Annual household income ($1000s)
Household size
Age (years)
Male (yes = 1, no = 0)
Married (yes = 1, no = 0)
Employed full-time (yes = 1, no = 0)
Afliated with an environmental organization (yes = 1, no = 0)

166

S.F. Sidique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 163170

Table 2
Summary statistics of variables.
Variable

Obs.

Mean

SD

THREEMTHS
ONEYEAR
DISTANCE
NUMREC
SORTIME
CURBSIDE
CDEGREE
INCOME
HSIZE
AGE
MALE
MARRIED
FULLEMP
ENVAFF

348
348
333
348
344
345
348
348
346
345
347
348
348
346

4.330
14.652
19.712
6.322
16.166
0.252
0.718
77,935
2.520
48.542
0.556
0.704
0.641
0.263

3.455
13.804
10.287
3.474
27.337
0.435
0.450
52.791
1.265
15.181
0.498
0.457
0.480
0.441

areas and for selected materials. Similarly, some large apartment

buildings provided onsite recycling facilities. We use access to curbside recycling as a summary indicator of a variety of such services.
Our interviews suggested that drop-off centers were usually used
for recycling materials that were not collected at the curbside.
Hence, we hypothesize that respondents without curbside recycling service at their residences would tend to recycle more at
drop-off centers than respondents with curbside recycling.
The summary statistics of the variables (Table 2) indicate that the
average number of visits to a drop-off site in the past three months
and one year were approximately 4 and 15 times respectively. The
average roundtrip distance traveled by the respondents to a drop-

off site was around 19 miles. The respondents recycled, on average, 6

different materials each time they visited a drop-off recycling site,
and they spent approximately 16 min sorting out the recyclables
that they brought. Twenty-ve percent of the respondents reported
that they had curbside recycling service at their residence.
The majority of the respondents (72%) had at least four years of
college education. Sixty-four percent of our respondents were fully
employed and the mean household income was $77,935. Our sample comprised of 56% male respondents indicating rough gender
balance in recycling participation. Seventy percent of the respondents were married, and the average household size was 2.5. Only
26% of the respondents indicated that they were afliated with one
or more environmental organizations.
Table 3 shows the statements that were used in our survey to
elicit the respondents experience, knowledge and attitude towards
recycling along with the respective distribution of Likert-scale
responses and descriptive statistics. The scale was dened as (1)
strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) disagree and (5) strongly disagree. Based on the mean score we can
see that drop-off recyclers disagree that recycling is a difcult task
(M = 4.174, SD = 0.825). They also disagree to both the statements of
not having enough sorting time (M = 4.285, SD = 0.711) and storage
space (M = 3.797, SD = 1.038). The recyclers also disagree that recyclables stored may attract pests (M = 4.026, SD = 0.825). Most of the
recyclers agree that they are familiar with the recycling facilities
(M = 1.947, SD = 0.847) and the materials accepted for recycling in
the facilities in their area (M = 1.724, SD = 0.595).
The recyclers also agree that their family expects them to recycle
(M = 2.312, M = 1.012). However, the recyclers are quite indiffer-

Table 3
Denition, distribution and descriptive statistics of Likert-scale variables.
Variable

Survey statement

Percentage distribution of response

Strongly agree

DIFFIC
TIME
SPACE
PEST
FACILI
MATERI

NEIGHB
FRIEND
FAMILY
GOOD
REDPOL
REDLAND
NATRES
ENVQ
BREDPOL
BREDLAND

BNATRES
BENVQ

For me, household recycling is a

difcult task
I do not have enough time to sort the
materials for recycling
I do not have enough space to store the
materials for recycling
The recyclables that I store attract pests
I am familiar with the recycling
facilities in my area
I am familiar with the materials
accepted for recycling in the recycling
facilities in my area
My neighbors expect me to recycle
household materials
My friends expect me to recycle
household materials
My family expects me to recycle
household materials
I feel good about myself when I recycle
Recycling is a major way to reduce
pollution
Recycling is a major way to reduce
wasteful use of landlls
Recycling is a major way to conserve
natural resources
Recycling will improve environmental
quality
I believe that my recycling activities
will help reduce pollution
I believe that my recycling activities
will help reduce wasteful use of
landlls.
I believe that my recycling activities
will help conserve natural resources
I believe that my recycling activities
will help improve environmental
quality

Agree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Descriptive statistics
Disagree

Strongly disagree

Mean

SD

2.1%

2.9%

5.6%

54.4%

35.0%

4.174

0.825

0.6%

3.5%

0.9%

56.8%

38.2%

4.285

0.711

2.6%

14.7%

5.9%

53.8%

22.9%

3.797

1.038

0.0%
28.8%

10.0%
57.1%

2.6%
5.0%

62.1%
8.8%

25.3%
0.3%

4.026
1.947

0.825
0.847

33.2%

63.2%

1.5%

2.1%

0.0%

1.724

0.595

2.9%

7.4%

55.3%

25.3%

9.1%

3.303

0.848

9.1%

23.5%

39.4%

22.9%

5.0%

2.912

1.012

21.2%

46.2%

16.5%

12.6%

3.5%

2.312

1.052

48.5%
45.7%

47.1%
48.7%

4.4%
4.1%

0.0%
1.2%

0.0%
0.3%

1.559
1.617

0.579
0.653

48.4%

49.9%

0.6%

0.9%

0.3%

1.549

0.591

49.0%

47.5%

2.1%

1.2%

0.3%

1.563

0.628

46.3%

51.3%

1.2%

0.9%

0.3%

1.575

0.598

44.7%

49.7%

3.5%

1.5%

0.6%

1.635

0.680

47.9%

50.0%

1.2%

0.6%

0.3%

1.553

0.585

48.5%

47.9%

1.8%

1.5%

0.3%

1.571

0.636

46.8%

50.9%

0.9%

0.9%

0.6%

1.576

0.622

S.F. Sidique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 163170

167

ent on the statements on whether their neighbors (M = 3.303,

SD = 0.848) and friends (M = 2.912, SD = 1.012) expect them to recycle. Nevertheless, most of the recyclers feel good about themselves
when they recycle (M = 1.559, SD = 0.579). The mean scores also
show that the recyclers strongly feel that recycling is generally benecial to the environment. The recyclers strongly agree
that recycling is a major way to reduce pollution (M = 1.617,
SD = 0.653), to reduce landll use (M = 1.549, SD = 0.591), to conserve natural resources (M = 1.563, SD = 0.628) and to improve
environmental quality (M = 1.575, SD = 0.598). Additionally, these
general perceptions on the benets of recycling are strengthened by what the recyclers believe about the contributions of
their activities. The recyclers strongly believe that their recycling
activities will actually contribute to reducing pollution (M = 1.635,
SD = 0.680), reducing landll use (M = 1.553, SD = 0.585), conserve
natural resources (M = 1.571, SD = 0.636) and improve environmental quality (M = 1.576, SD = 0.622).
Fig. 1. Scree plot of eigenvalues and factors.

4.3. Factor analysis

We use factor analysis with principal component analysis to
group the Likert-scale variables into a small number of interpretable underlying factors. Factor analysis will group the variables
that are measuring the same construct. This method is commonly
used in social science research. We use the Kaiser eigenvalue criterion and the scree test, as suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein
(1997), to decide on how many factors to retain before proceeding
with further analysis. According to the eigenvalue criterion, factors
with eigenvalues greater than one are retained and factors with
eigenvalues less than one are considered insignicant and therefore excluded. Table 4 reports the initial factor extraction with the
eigenvalues and percentage of variances for each successive factor.
Using the eigenvalue criterion method, four factors were retained
for further analysis.
The scree test, on the other hand, is a graphical method of determining the number of appropriate factors to retain. The scree test
involves plotting the eigenvalue magnitudes on the vertical axis
against the component numbers on the horizontal axis and noting
the point at which the plot becomes fairly horizontal. The number
of factors corresponding to the fairly horizontal point indicates the
appropriate number to retain. In Fig. 1, the point where the line
becomes fairly horizontal starts at about factor 4. Thus, the scree
test indicates that we should also retain four factors, similar to the
result of the eigenvalue criterion method.
We also assess the suitability of our data for factor analysis using
the KaiserMayerOlkins (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy
and Bartletts test of sphericity (Hair et al., 1998). The sampling
adequacy test predicts if data are likely to factor well, based on correlation and partial correlation, and a KMO measure value greater
than 0.6 is considered acceptable. Bartletts test of sphericity is used
to test the null hypothesis that the variables in the population correlation matrix are uncorrelated. The results are reported in Table 5,
which show that the data meet the requirements for factor analysis.
We use the Varimax rotation method (Kaiser, 1958) to rotate the
four retained factors in our solution. The rotated factor matrix with
its factor loadings is presented in Table 6.
Table 4
Total variance explained.
Factor

1
2
3
4

Initial eigenvalues
Total

% of variance

Cumulative %

7.6666
2.0989
1.6771
1.1681

42.59%
11.66%
9.32%
6.49%

42.59%
54.25%
63.57%
70.06%

Table 5
KMO and Bartletts test.
KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy

0.841

Approx. 
Df
Signicance
2

Bartletts test of sphericity

5075
153
p < 0.001

We consider variables with loadings greater than 0.4 to be

highly loaded and salient to the interpretation of a factor. Using
this criterion, the variables are grouped together in the appropriate
factor categories (refer to highlighted cells in Table 6). Each factor is
described based on these variables and assigned descriptive names.
We also compute the Cronbachs coefcient alpha for each factor to
test the reliability of scales of the item variables. While there is no
standard cut-off point for the alpha coefcient, a generally acceptable lower limit is 0.7 (Hair et al., 1998) although values higher
than 0.5 are acceptable in exploratory research (Nunnally, 1978).
We then use the factor loadings to compute the factor scores.
The variables that load highly on factor 1 are, GOOD, REDPOL,
REDLAND, NATRES, ENVQ, BREDLAND, BNATRES and BENVQ. This factor is labeled as Attitude and can be best described as attitude and
belief that recycling activities benet the environment. A low score
for this factor indicates that the respondents have positive attitude
and belief that their recycling activities lead to environmental benets such as reduced pollution and landll use, conserving natural
Table 6
Rotated factor matrix.
Variable

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

DIFFIC
TIME
SPACE
PEST
FACILI
MATERI
NEIGHB
FRIEND
FAMILY
GOOD
REDPOL
REDLAND
NATRES
ENVQ
BREDPOL
BREDLAND
BNATRES
BENVQ

0.109
0.205
0.145
0.231
0.168
0.224
0.042
0.126
0.112
0.482
0.873
0.893
0.927
0.877
0.877
0.917
0.924
0.895

0.811
0.842
0.679
0.410
0.003
0.198
0.005
0.092
0.122
0.351
0.050
0.106
0.112
0.113
0.065
0.130
0.075
0.144

0.138
0.002
0.118
0.104
0.027
0.129
0.820
0.799
0.720
0.041
0.067
0.015
0.007
0.048
0.103
0.074
0.016
0.106

0.115
0.036
0.015
0.286
0.853
0.747
0.086
0.020
0.042
0.190
0.105
0.101
0.089
0.116
0.057
0.108
0.079
0.064

168

S.F. Sidique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 163170

resources and improving environmental quality. The Cronbachss

alpha for these items is 0.96.
The item variables with high loadings on factor 2 are DIFFIC,
TIME, SPACE and PEST. We label this factor as Convenience as it
relates to recycling being a convenient activity to undertake. A high
score for this factor signies that the respondents regard recycling
as something that is convenient to them as they have no issue with
it being difcult, time consuming, space consuming, or attracting
pests. The Cronbachs alpha for these variable items is 0.6964.
We label factor 3 as Social Pressure because the variables that
load highly on factor 3 concern social pressures on the recycler.
The variables in this factor are NEIGHB, FRIEND and FAMILY. A low
score for this factor indicates that the respondent feels that neighbors, friends and family expectations are important elements in
encouraging him/her to recycle. The Cronbachs alpha for factor 3
is 0.7015.
The variables that load highly on factor 4 are FACILI and MATERI.
We label this factor as Familiar as it relates to the familiarity of
recycling facilities. A low score for this factor demonstrates that
respondents are highly familiar with the recycling facilities and
the materials accepted in the recycling facilities in their area. The
Cronbachss alpha for factor 4 is 0.579.
Table 7 outlines the factors, their respective variables as
extracted by the factor analysis, and their Cronbachs alpha coefcient. The factors condense the experience, knowledge and attitude
towards recycling of our survey respondents into four new interpretable variables; namely Attitude, Convenience, Social Pressure
and Familiarity. We use the factor scores of these four new variables and analyze the effects of these on the number of recycling
visits to drop-off centers.
5. Estimation model and results
The main purpose of the article is to analyze the variables that
inuence visits to drop-off recycling sites. This section develops a
visitation model to analyze the effects of demographics, environmental afliation, and the attitude and knowledge variables derived
from the factor analysis, on the number of trips taken to a drop-off
site. The visitation model is developed using the Poisson regression method. Poisson regression is utilized because the data for our
dependent variable, the trips an individual takes to a recycling site
yi , is classied as a count variable where yi can only take discrete
values (yi = 1, 2, 3, . . .). More specically, we will use the endogenous stratied and truncated Poisson regression since we do not
observe zero trips for any of the sample members as our sample
is obtained via the onsite sampling method. Following Haab and
McConnell (2002) the Poisson probability with onsite endogeneity
and truncation is expressed as follows:

Pr( yi  yi > 0) =

ei yi i 1

(1)

yi 1!

where i is both the mean and the variance of the distribution. Since
it is necessary for i > 0, it is commonly specied as an exponential
function:
i = exp(xi )

(2)

Table 7
Factors, item variables and Cronbachs alpha.
Factor

Item variables

Cronbachs

(1) Attitude

GOOD, REDPOL, REDLAND, NATRES,

ENVQ, BREDLAND, BNATRES, BENVQ
DIFFIC, TIME, SPACE, PEST
NEIGHB, FRIEND, FAMILY
FACILI, MATERI

0.960

(2) Convenience
(3) Social pressure
(4) Familiarity

0.696
0.702
0.579

where xi is a vector of explanatory variables. Eq. (1) can be simplied

by re-writing it as:
y


ei i i
Pr( yi  yi > 0) =


(3)

yi !

where yi = yi 1. Using Eq. (3), we obtain the log-likelihood of a

Poisson function

 

ln  X, y =

T


[eXi + Xi yi ln(yi !)]

(4)

i=1

and thus, the onsite endogenous and truncated Possion can be estimated by simply running a standard Poisson regression of yi 1 on
all Xi s.
The time invested in sorting the recyclables prior to visiting
a drop-off center is a household decision which may affect the
number of visits and in turn may be affected by the number of
visits, which gives rise to a potential endogeniety problem in our
estimation model. We conduct the omitted-variable version of the
Hausman test to examine whether there is an endogeneity bias in
our estimates using a two-stage instrumental variable method. Our
instrumental variable was the tted values obtained by regressing the likely endogenous variable, SORTTIME, as a function of all
the other independent variables in the regressions and additional
dummy variables for materials recycled. Our tests failed to reject
the hypothesis of no endogeniety bias. Hence we report the results
corrected for endoegeniety with the instrumental variable for SORTTIME in Table 8.
Table 8 presents the results of the Poisson regression models
predicting the number of trips taken to a recycling drop-off site in
the last one year. There are two models in this analysis. Model 1
is the basic model that uses distance, number of recyclables, sorting time, access to curbside recycling and demographic variables as
dependent variables. Model 2 is the extended model that includes
all four Likert-scale variables derived from the previous factor analysis along with all of the basic variables in Model 1. The purpose of
two models is to see the incremental effects of attitude and familiarTable 8
Poisson regression.
Dependent variable: ONEYEAR i.e. number of visits in the past year
Variable

Model 1
Coeff.

Model 2
Std. error

DISTANCE
NUMREC
SORTIME
CURBSIDE
CDEGREE
INCOME
HSIZE
AGE
MALE
MARRIED
FULLEMP
ENVAFF
CONVENIENCE
FAMILIAR
SOCIAL
ATTITUDE
CONSTANT

0.01
0.035
0.039
0.013
0.025
0.002
0.031
0.01
0.03
0.086
0.303
0.114

0.001
0.007***
0.011***
0.046
0.045
0.001***
0.018*
0.001***
0.032
0.042**
0.038***
0.038***

2.483

0.146***

Observations
Log-likelihood
2 ln(LR /LU )
Pseudo R2

329
2343.06
424.33
0.08

*
**
***

***

Statistically signicant at the 10% level.

Statistically signicant at the 5% level.
Statistically signicant at the 1% level.

Coeff.

Std. error

0.01
0.036
0.037
0.013
0.004
0.002
0.048
0.008
0.059
0.018
0.331
0.036
0.046
0.148
0.084
0.021
2.561

0.002***
0.007***
0.012***
0.047
0.047
0.001***
0.019***
0.001***
0.033*
0.044
0.04***
0.041
0.016***
0.017***
0.016***
0.017
0.152***

322
2195.48
516.83
0.11

S.F. Sidique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 163170

ity variables over demographic and distance variables. The results

show that both Models 1 and 2 are statistically signicant with
likelihood ratio test statistics of 424.33 and 516.83 respectively.
All the coefcients in Model 1 are statistically signicant at
5% except for CURBSIDE, CDGREE and MALE, indicating that access
to curbside recycling services, gender and education level do not
have statistically signicant effects on the expected number of site
visits. The coefcients on NUMREC, INCOME, HSIZE, AGE and MARRIED in Model 1 are positive indicating that increased number of
recyclables, household size and income increase the number of visits. The positive coefcient for ENVAFF indicates that afliation to
an environmental organization increases the expected number of
site visits. The coefcients on DISTANCE, SORTIME, and FULLEMP
are negative. The signicance level of the coefcients in Model 2
after adding the four attitudinal variables do not change except
for ENVAFF, which is no longer signicant, indicating that environmental afliation was capturing the effects of the attitudinal
variables. The coefcients on NUMREC, INCOME, HSIZE and AGE in
the extended model remain positive. The coefcients on DISTANCE,
SORTIME, CDEGREE and FULLEMP remain negative and statistically
signicant. Three of the four attitudinal variables: CONVENIENCE,
FAMILIAR and SOCIAL are signicant at the 1% level. FAMILIAR and
SOCIAL have negative signs and CONVENIENCE has a positive sign.
The coefcients on DISTANCE imply that the expected number of visits reduces by 1% as roundtrip distance from home to
site increases by a mile. This result conrms earlier ndings (e.g.
Saphores et al., 2006) that proximity to recycling sites encourages
recycling behavior. The coefcient on NUMREC indicates that the
number of site visits is expected to increase when a recycler recycles
a larger variety of recyclables. The time taken to sort the recyclables
at home was found to reduce the expected number of site visits. The
SORTTIME coefcient in Model 2 indicates that a 1 min increase in
sorting time reduces the expected number of site visits by 3.7%. Surprisingly, the coefcient for CURBSIDE in Model 2 suggests that the
availability of curbside recycling does not signicantly affect dropoff recycling. Our interviews suggested that this was mainly because
of the limited number of materials accepted in curbside programs,
e.g. most of the curbside programs did not accept colored glass or
cardboard, which were accepted at the drop-off centers.
The negative coefcients on FULLEMP indicate that people who
are employed full-time are likely to spend less time on recycling
activities when compared to people who are employed part time or
unemployed. An increase in annual household income and household size increase the number of site visits. The positive relationship
is as anticipated because larger and richer households tend to consume more goods. This result also conrms the ndings by Vining
and Ebreo (1990), Oskamp et al. (1991), and Gamba and Oskamp
(1994). The positive relationship between age and number of site
visits is also consistent with previous ndings that older people
have a higher tendency to recycle (Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Meneses
and Palacio, 2005; Saphores et al., 2006).
The positive coefcient of the variable CONVENIENCE in Model
2 indicates that the number of expected site visits increases when
recycling is regarded as a convenient activity. This result conrms
the previous ndings that convenience is an important factor that
encourages recycling behavior (Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Hornik et
al., 1995; Domina and Koch, 2002; Gonzalez-Torre et al., 2003;
Saphores et al., 2006). The coefcient for FAMILIAR suggests that
people who are more familiar with locations and materials accepted
at the drop-off center in his or her vicinity are expected to make
more visits to the centers than the less familiar people. The coefcient for SOCIAL implies that pressure from peers and family has
a positive effect on drop-off site visits. This result conforms to
the ndings of previous studies that indicate social pressure is
an important factor motivating recycling behavior (Oskamp et al.,
1991; Do Valle et al., 2004).

169

We also ran similar regressions with number of visits during the

previous three months as the dependent variable. The t of the overall regressions was weaker, mainly on account of lower variation in
the dependent variable while all explanatory variables remained
the same as the one-year visit model. All the coefcient estimates
had similar signs and similar values as the one-year model. However, only coefcients on DISTANCE, NUMREC, FULLEMP, FAMILIAR
and SOCIAL continued to be statistically signicant.
6. Conclusions
Despite the relative popularity of drop-off recycling among local
governments and policy makers, little research has empirically
examined drivers of drop-off recycling. This study helps to understand the prole of people who utilize drop-off recycling sites
as well the underlying factors that inuence their frequency of
use. Another strength of the study is that it considers economic
(e.g. travel distance, sorting time, income), demographic (e.g. age,
gender) and psychological (e.g. attitude, knowledge) drivers of
recycling behavior in the specic context of drop-off recycling. In
comparison, as discussed, many of the earlier studies lack close correspondence to drop-off recycling. Hence the ndings of this study
are likely to be more reliable for understanding drop-off recycling.
The study results suggest that location plays a crucial role in
inuencing the usage pattern of drop-off sites. Recyclers are likely
to use a drop-off site more frequently if the travel distance from
home to site is shorter. Thus, the decision to establish a drop-off
recycling program should factor in location to encourage its use.
Our results suggest that socioeconomic variables such as household size and income, which are likely highly correlated with
household consumption (and hence waste generation), are good
predictors of recycling behavior, compared to gender and marital status. Therefore, locating drop-off recycling centers convenient
to higher income, older neighborhoods is likely to lead to higher
utilization.
The results indicate that beliefs about recycling convenience,
familiarity with recycling infrastructure and social pressure are
signicant drivers of recycling behavior. Recyclers tend to use
the drop-off sites more when they feel that recycling is a convenient activity and are familiar with the available recycling facilities.
Hence communication and education efforts aimed at improving
awareness of recycling facilities and recycling convenience can be
effective in promoting visits to recycling centers. Our results for
social pressure are consistent with the growing body of research
that shows how leveraging social norms can enhance conservation
(Schultz, 1999; Chen et al., 2009). Interestingly, beliefs about the
environmental effects of recycling were not signicantly related to
the number of drop-off trips. As such, our ndings are consistent
with research showing that communication appeals based on environmental protection are less effective that appeals that leverage
social norms (Goldstein et al., 2008). Thus, the results suggest that
such promotion efforts aimed at children and the community in
general can also indirectly increase recycling by increasing social
pressure.
References
Aadland D, Caplan AJ. Household valuation of curbside recycling. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1999;42:78199.
Aadland D, Caplan AJ. Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and
mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
2003;85:492502.
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitudebehavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 1977;84:888918.
Arcury T, Scollay S, Johnson T. Sex differences in environmental concern and knowledge: the case of acid rain. Sex Roles 1987;16:46373.
Blaine TW, Lichtkoppler FR, Jones KR, Zondag RH. An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: a comparison of payment

170

S.F. Sidique et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 163170

card and referendum approaches. Journal of Environmental Management

2005;76(1):1522.
Chen X, Lupi F, He G, Liu J. Linking social norms to efcient conservation investment
in payments for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 2009;106:118127.
Domina T, Koch K. Convenience and frequency of recycling: implications for
including textiles in curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behavior
2002;34:21638.
Do Valle PO, Elizabeth R, Menezes J, Rebelo E. Behavioral determinants of household recycling participation: the Portuguese case. Environment and Behavior
2004;36:50540.
Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE. Measuring endorsement of
the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues
2000;56(3):42542.
Ebreo A, Vining J. How similar are recycling and waste reduction? Future orientation and reasons for reducing waste as predictors of self-reported behavior.
Environment and Behavior 2001;33:42448.
Fullerton D, Kinnaman TC. Household responses to pricing garbage by the bag. The
American Economic Review 1996;86:97184.
Gamba RJ, Oskamp S. Factors inuencing community residents participation
in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behavior
1994;26:587612.
Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V. A room with a viewpoint: using normative
appeals to motivate environmental conservation in a hotel setting. Journal of
Consumer Research 2008;35:47282.
Gonzalez-Torre PL, Adenso-Daz B, Ruiz-Torres A. Some comparative factors regarding recycling collection systems in regions of the USA and Europe. Journal of
Environmental Management 2003;69:12938.
Haab TC, McConnell KE. Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2002.
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998.
Hong S. The effects of unit pricing system upon household solid waste management:
the Korean experience. Journal of Environmental Management 1999;57:110.
Hong S, Adams RM. Household responses to price incentives for recycling: some
further evidence. Land Economics 1999;75:50514.
Hornik J, Cherian J, Madansky M, Narayana C. Determinants of recycling behavior: a
synthesis of research results. Journal of Socio-Economics 1995;24:10527.
Jenkins RR, Martinez SA, Palmer K, Poldolsky MJ. The determinants of household recycling: a material-specic analysis of recycling program features
and unit pricing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
2003;45:294318.
Kaiser HF. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1958;23:187200.

Kinnaman TC, Fullerton D. Garbage and recycling with endogenous local policy.
Journal of Urban Economics 2000;48:41942.
Lake IR, Bateman IJ, Partt JP. Assessing a kerbside recycling scheme: a quantitative and willingness to pay case study. Journal of Environmental Management
1996;46:23954.
Margai F. Analyzing changes in waste reduction behavior in a low-income urban
community following a public outreach program. Environment and Behavior
1997;29:76992.
Meneses GD, Palacio AB. Recycling behavior: a multidimensional approach. Environment and Behavior 2005;37:83760.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric methods. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill;
1997.
Oskamp S, Harrington MJ, Edwards TC, Sherwood DL, Okuda SM, Swanson DC.
Factors inuencing household recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior
1991;23:494519.
Saphores JM, Nixon H, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA. Household willingness to recycle electronic waste: an application to California. Environment and Behavior
2006;38:183208.
Scott D. Equal opportunity, unequal results: determinants of household recycling
intensity. Environment and Behavior 1999;31:26790.
Schultz PW. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: a eld
experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology
1999;21:2536.
Snyder KC, Kristel OV, Dhmammarungruang B, Sang S. Report to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: drop-off recyclingunderstanding participation and
determining an empirically based access credit model. July 14, 2004.
Speirs D, Tucker P. A prole of recyclers making special trips to recycle. Journal of
Environmental Management 2001;62:20120.
Tiller KH, Jakus PM, Park WM. Household willingness to pay for drop-off recycling.
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1997;22:31020.
USEPA, Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United
States: facts and gures for 2000.
USEPA. Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United
States: facts and gures for 2007.
Van Houtven GL, Morris GE. Household behavior under alternative pay-asyou-throw systems for solid waste disposal. Land Economics 1999;75:515
37.
Vining J, Ebreo A. What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior 1990;22:5573.
Werner C, Makela E. Motivations and behaviors that support recycling. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 1998;18:37386.