Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6 (2020) 100035

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling-x

Behavioral change for the circular economy: A review with focus on T

electronic waste management in the EU
Keshav Parajulya,b,*, Colin Fitzpatrickb, Orla Muldoonc, Ruediger Kuehra
a
United Nations University, Vice Rectorate in Europe, Sustainable Cycles Programme (SCYCLE), Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, 53113, Bonn, Germany
b
Dept. of Electronic & Computer Engineering, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
c
Dept. of Psychology, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In recent years, electrical and electronic products (e-products) have been central to the discussion of resource
Consumer behavior sustainability due to their growing demand, use of critical resources, and challenges in managing the resulting
Circular economy waste stream (e-waste). As such, the concept of circular economy, which seeks to ‘design out’ waste by better
E-waste products, practices and business models, is deemed to be very relevant for e-products. The nature of circular
WEEE
systems mandates a collective effort of businesses, consumers, and governments. While the techno-economic
Electronic waste
Sustainable consumption
sides of the circular economy have attracted large attention in recent years, the role of consumer behavior – a
Behavior change critical factor in defining the long-term success of ‘sustainable production and consumption’ initiatives – remains
less explored. In this context, this paper explores the potential of integrating lessons from behavioral sciences to
facilitate circular economy in e-waste management. It offers a review of prominent behavioral theories and their
application in the context of sustainable consumption and pro-environmental behaviors. Finally, the paper
identifies opportunities for behavioral interventions in improving e-waste management and in achieving a more
circular economy.

1. Introduction and subsequent processing of e-waste for material recovery (European

Parliament, 2003). The Directive mandates all member states of the
1.1. Background European Union to facilitate separate collection of and resource re-
covery from e-waste. More importantly, the system based on Extended
Electrical and electronic products (e-products) have been one of the Producer Responsibility (EPR) principle has made producers re-
focus areas in the discussion of resource sustainability mainly due to a) sponsible for their e-products with the aim of improving recyclability
their growing demand, b) the use of critical resources, and c) challenges and encouraging the integration of EoL aspects during product design
in properly managing the end-of-life (EoL) for e-products (known as e- (Atasu, 2018). For more than two decades, concepts such as ‘design-for-
waste) (Breivik et al., 2014; Habib et al., 2015). E-waste is a fast- recycling’ have also been in circulation (Kriwet et al., 1995) and more
growing waste stream globally, which with the current trend, is ex- recently, the European Ecodesign Directive has begun to set design
pected to double by 2045 (Parajuly et al., 2019). E-waste is also a requirements for energy-related products to include all stages of pro-
mixture of valuable resources and toxic substances that demands duct lifecycle, including product EoL (European Parliament, 2009).
careful handling. E-products have evolved to become complex and The results of these collective efforts, however, have not been sa-
ubiquitous in everyday lives but e-waste collection and management tisfactory. Despite relatively well-established waste management in-
systems have not caught up – largely failing to ensure proper handling frastructure in place, European countries only collect about one third of
of e-waste. This entails potential risks of resource losses and negative the generated e-waste under the official collection systems with sig-
impacts on environment as well as human health (Wang et al., 2016b). nificant quantities going to non-compliant waste management channels
Governments and other actors have taken actions to tackle the (Balde et al., 2015). As for products themselves, little evidence of design
growing e-waste problem. In Europe, for example, the Waste Electrical supporting EoL resource recovery exists. Classic design flaws are still
and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive sets targets for collection found even in modern e-products (Parajuly et al., 2016). Due to their

⁎
Corresponding author at: United Nations University, Vice Rectorate in Europe, Sustainable Cycles Programme (SCYCLE), Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, 53113,
Bonn, Germany.
E-mail address: parajuly@vie.unu.edu (K. Parajuly).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100035
Received 15 August 2019; Received in revised form 20 November 2019; Accepted 24 February 2020
Available online 25 February 2020
2590-289X/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
K. Parajuly, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6 (2020) 100035

Fig. 1. Examples of gap between people’s claim and actual practices [sources: (Baldé et al., 2017; Cerulli-Harms et al., 2018; European Union, 2014; Huisman et al.,
2017; Parajuly and Wenzel, 2017)].

complex material composition and design, many e-products are not more focus is on the consumption (or use) of artifact as the goal is to
compatible with material recycling processes, which results in resource maximize the usefulness and hence the utility of resources (Ellen
losses. As the recycling techniques try to catch up with the ever-ad- MacArthur Foundation, 2013). In this regard, the techno-economic
vancing product design, ‘Design-for-EoL’ has not been the priority. aspects of the circular economy concept has been extensively studied in
Overall, the lack of progress is disappointing – considering how much recent years. However, like in the sustainability debate, the role, mo-
policy development and technological research has taken place. tivations, and drivers of end users’ behavior in a circular system has not
In recent years, the concept of circular economy is deemed in- been equally examined. The social and behavioral elements linked to
creasingly relevant in addressing the e-waste problem. Circular consumption of everyday goods, and how they need to be adapted to
economy aims to ‘design out’ waste through optimization of products enable regular people to facilitate the success of a circular system, re-
and materials cycles by keeping them at their highest utility and value main largely unexplored (Camacho-Otero et al., 2018). In the midst of
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019) with the help of cleaner and re- discussions on technicalities of improved e-waste collection and re-
newable technologies, innovative business models, and policies sup- cycling rates, users’ important role in sustainable production and con-
porting them (Ghisellini et al., 2016). Such an optimization can be sumption of e-products seems to have been neglected (Otto et al.,
realized through better-designed products and business models that 2018).
allow a) product lifetime extension, b) reuse of products and compo-
nents, and c) efficient material recovery from the EoL products. To
begin with, the vision of EPR-based e-waste management system was in 1.2. Consumer behavior in a circular economy
line with that of a circular economy as it was believed that by making
producers responsible for EoL collection and treatment, they would be End-users of e-products (consumers) are directly involved in the
incentivized to re-organize business models and product designs to re- three key stages of a product lifecycle: purchase, use, and EoL man-
duce their EoL costs. The implementation however, has been limited to agement. Users’ behavior and decision making during these stages have
simply collection and subsequent material recycling processes with direct implications to the success of not only the most preferred options
collective schemes offering no incentive for individual actors to im- in a circular economy (reuse and repair), but also subsequent resource
prove resource recovery. Preparation for reuse of EoL products, which recovery (recycling) at the product EoL. Investing in more durable
would conserve the embodied energy and many critical raw materials products and/or engaging with circular business models (purchase),
that are lost during recycling, is almost non-existent (Coughlan et al., opting for repair and reuse of functional broken products (use) and
2018; Parajuly and Wenzel, 2017). timely and proper disposal of products with no reuse potential (EoL
In the academic discourse on environmental sustainability, the management) are examples of such consumer behaviors.
consumption side of the product lifecycle has not always received equal Because of their interactions to everyday lives, circular strategies
attention as the production side. Most common carbon management seeking to boost resource efficiency (including infrastructure, products,
frameworks use production-based rather than consumption-based ac- business models and policies) will not succeed without the considera-
counting (Sudmant et al., 2018). The latter approach assigns emissions tion of public acceptance and adaptation (Cherry et al., 2018; van
to the consumption point of goods and services, which may provide a Weelden et al., 2016v). There are technological as well as economic
better guide for climate policies (Steininger et al., 2014). This practice, challenges (in terms of infrastructure and incentives) to implement a
however, is not surprising given the ‘linear’ nature of current economic perfect system allowing all users and businesses to engage in the cir-
systems in which production, consumption and EoL management of cular economy. While many stakeholders are driven by monetary re-
consumer goods are isolated in many regards. In a circular economy, wards and legislative requirements, certain transactions rely on users’
behaviors (e.g., exploring reuse options, selling second hand, returning

2
K. Parajuly, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6 (2020) 100035

instead of stockpiling, and recycling instead of wrongly discarding). terms and a snowball technique was used to identify all relevant lit-
Such behaviors have considerable impact on EoL collection and re- erature within the scope of this paper. Since the literature in the field of
source recovery, and on the success of a circular system for e-products. behavioral change for circular economy is limited, we expand our scope
The majority of Europeans are aware of the environmental issues beyond the academic publications. We include academic literature (e.g.
linked to our consumption model and the importance of effective use of peer–reviewed articles, conference proceedings, books chapters, etc.) as
resources (European Union, 2014). Many of them also claim to parti- well as other publications (e.g. reports, popular science books, case
cipate in waste sorting, and to be willing to try reused items or alter- studies, etc.) in our review. In total, 115 publications were reviewed. A
native business models such as leasing (Cerulli-Harms et al., 2018). The list of reviewed publications on pro-environmental behaviors, linked to
practices however, do not reflect the claims made by the people. Some waste management in general and specifically on e-waste and circular
examples of the gap between people’s claims and their actions during economy, along with their scope is provided as Supplementary
purchase, use and EoL of e-products are offered in Fig. 1. These ex- Material.
amples are based on limited available data on consumer behavior and
not all of them may be directly comparable to reflect the gaps, never- 3. Behavioral change
theless, they offer a useful insight. For example, at the product EoL, 76
% of Europeans claim that they sort their e-waste but only 35 % of the The complex nature of human behavior is explained by several
generated e-waste is collected under official collection systems in the theoretical frameworks from varying fields of study. More than 80
EU. It implies that part of the sorted e-waste is either stockpiled at different theories of behavior and behavioral change exist across the
homes or collected through unofficial channels. Moreover, these gaps field of psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics (Darnton,
are the outcome not only of consumer choices, but also of available e- 2008; Davis et al., 2015). Widely used in the sector of public health, the
waste disposal options and collection systems that are often beyond use of theory-based behavioral intervention is limited when it comes to
consumers’ control. promoting pro-environmental behaviors. Most common theories (and
Many environmental problems are rooted in human behavior, and models) of pro-environmental behaviors can be grouped as moral, ra-
behavioral changes are therefore needed to utilize the potential of tional choice, and economic models (Turaga et al., 2010). In addition,
technological innovations helping environmental sustainability (Steg nudging and community-based social marketing are two popular in-
and Vlek, 2009). The efficacy of intervention strategies to promote pro- tervention strategies that make the use of cognitive biases and social
environmental behavior relying on information campaigns is limited influences, respectively (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011; Thaler and Sunstein,
mainly because of the fact that environmental literacy do not ne- 2008). The following sections briefly unpack these theories and inter-
cessarily translate into sustainable actions (Frisk and Larson, 2011). vention tools, an overview of which is illustrated in Fig. 2 below.
Human behavior is understood to be linked to both intrinsic as well as
extrinsic attributes (Martin et al., 2017). In the context of sustainable 3.1. Rational choice theories
consumption behavior, intrinsic attributes include knowledge, motiva-
tion, beliefs, habits, values, attitudes, intentions and other psycholo- Attitude and subjective norms are the main constructs of rational
gical variables whereas extrinsic attributes include social and cultural choice theories (Kaiser et al., 1999). The theory of planned behavior
norms, monetary implications, and contextual variables such as infra- (TPB) is one of the most popular psychological theories used in the
structure and institutional constraints (Jackson, 2005; Knussen and research of pro-environmental behavior (Botetzagias et al., 2015). It
Yule, 2008; Young et al., 2009). This paper explores the possibilities suggests that pro-environmental behaviors are the result of ‘rational
and barriers in integrating behavioral insights in sustainable production choices’ made with the goal of maximizing personal benefit (Bamberg,
and consumption initiatives. 2013). Centered on an individual’s ‘intention’ to perform a certain be-
havior, the TPB suggests that such intentions can be predicted from
2. Method attitudes toward the behavior as well as subjective (social) norms and
perceived behavioral control, and the actual behavior is the result of
2.1. Scope these intentions combined with individual’s perception of behavioral
control (Ajzen, 1991). Assuming intention to be the most important
We study the potential for utilizing behavioral insights in the con- factor in behavioral change, the framework of TPB advocates for ‘goal-
text of circular economy and e-waste. For this, we review prominent directed’ behavioral interventions for promoting pro-environmental
behavioral theories, models, and intervention tools that are linked to
sustainable consumption and pro-environmental behaviors. The goal is
to identify opportunities for implementing behavioral interventions in
properly managing e-waste, and in a larger context, in achieving a more
circular economy by promoting circular business models, product life-
time extension and material recycling.

2.2. Literature review

We begin with an attempt to understand existing theories on human

behavior and behavioral change from different fields of study including
social and behavioral sciences, economics, and psychology. We then
closely analyze the literature where these theories are applied in the
context of environmental and resource sustainability in order to a)
create an overview of behavioral theories linked to sustainable pro-
duction and consumption and b) collect examples of behavioral inter-
ventions in the context of e-products and circular economy. Google
Scholar was used as the primary search tool for the publications using
different combinations of keywords including ‘behavior’, ‘circular
economy’, ‘consumer’, ‘consumption’, ‘e-waste’, ‘pro-environmental’, Fig. 2. Elements of pro-environmental consumer behavior and their connection
‘sustainable’, and ‘theory’. However, the search was not limited to these to the main theories and intervention strategies for behavioral change.

3
K. Parajuly, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6 (2020) 100035

intention, and thus, behavior (Botetzagias et al., 2015). 3.3. Economic models
Past research have tested the effectiveness of this theory in the
domains of circular economy and e-waste management. The TPB has In economics, pro-environmental behaviors are modeled as the
been used as a framework to study, for example, determinants of con- ‘private provision of public goods’ (Saphores et al., 2012). Unlike psy-
sumers’ e-waste disposal behavior intentions in China (Wang et al., chological theories, the approach of economic models assumes in-
2016a) and Vietnam (Le et al., 2013), willingness to participate in dividuals to be utility-maximizers whose behavior can be influenced
formal e-waste recycling in Nigeria (Nduneseokwu et al., 2017), in- through incentives (Nnorom et al., 2009). Individuals’ stated will-
tention-behavior gap in e-waste recycling in Brazil (Echegaray and ingness to pay (WTP) for environmental improvements has been widely
Hansstein, 2017), and young adults’ e-waste recycling behavior cross- used as a metric for pro-environmental behavior. Willingness to pay for
culturally in China and India (Kumar, 2019). In addition, The will- better management of e-waste and waste in general has been studied in
ingness to participate in e-waste recycling with a points reward system Asian, African and South American countries, where proper infra-
(Zhong and Huang, 2016) and through online e-waste recycling plat- structure as well as the ‘polluters-pay’ philosophy are yet to fully de-
forms (Wang et al., 2019) were also investigated in China. The TPB has velop (Dwivedy and Mittal, 2013; Nnorom et al., 2009; Wang et al.,
also been used to analyze the key variables underlying the consumers’ 2011). There are also examples, though comparatively fewer, from
purchase intentions of remanufactured e-products (Jiménez-Parra et al., other regions including Northern America and Europe (Nixon et al.,
2014). 2009; Saphores et al., 2012). Willingness to pay a premium for greener
The outcome of these studies, which rely mostly on questionnaire and remanufactured products have also been studied for different ca-
surveys for data collection, are mixed. While some suggest that en- tegories of e-products (Atlason et al., 2017; Michaud and Llerena, 2011;
vironmental awareness is the most important predictor of e-waste re- Saphores et al., 2007).
cycling behavioral intention (Wang et al., 2016a), others point to per- WTP may vary with socioeconomic factors (demography, education
ceived behavior control (Le et al., 2013), attitude (Kumar, 2019), and level, income, etc.) (Turaga et al., 2010; Yin et al., 2014). Although
social norms (Echegaray and Hansstein, 2017). This suggests a potential affixed to the economic value of outcome of the investment, WTP also
indirect influence of external factors (possibly demographic and socio- reflects some degree of altruistic motives and moral values (Guagnano,
economic factors) in determining e-waste recycling behavior, which 2001; Nunes and Schokkaert, 2003). Some have even suggested that
may challenge the generalized applicability of the TBP. The famous environmental attitude and values are stronger predictors of WTP than
‘intention-behavior gap’ – the fact that only few intentions translate socioeconomic characteristics (Nixon et al., 2009). However, the mar-
into behaviors – is another source of skepticism against founding be- ketplace behavior of consumers are not always consistent with their
havioral change interventions on the TPB (Bamberg, 2013). attitude or ethics (De Pelsmacker et al., 2005). Hypothetical bias is also
a pronounced issue, which suggest that the WTP preference may vary
3.2. Moral theories between hypothetical and real settings but findings are not conclusive
(Aadland and Caplan, 2003; Carlsson and Martinsson, 2001).
Moral norms – descriptive and prescriptive – are a strong driver of
pro-environmental practices as well as policies (Davis et al., 2018). 3.4. Community-based social marketing
People in general value environmental quality and accept the respon-
sibility to care for it, and environmental campaigns can benefit more Social marketing exploits the evidence that people are more likely to
from appealing to people’s ‘positive self-concept’ than their ‘economic follow what others do (Liebig and Rommel, 2014). It is a strategic
self-interest’ (Bolderdijk et al., 2012). Behavioral change driven by in- planning process that uses marketing principles and techniques to in-
trinsic motivators may also be longer lasting than external (e.g. fi- fluence behavioral changes that benefit society and the individual
nancial) rewards that seem to dilute the ‘purity’ of an altruistic act (van (Salazar et al., 2019). Social marketing is compared with education and
der Linden, 2018v). Altruistic values are positively linked to pro-en- law as one of the three major tools for behavioral change with the claim
vironmental norms. Beliefs about environmental impacts and the ef- that the toolbox of social marketing has more options than other the-
fectiveness of one’s action come into play between values and norms. ories and frameworks for behavioral change. A merger of knowledge
These beliefs and norms, and thus the readiness to perform certain from psychology and social marketing, community-based social mar-
action, can be shaped by information (Stern, 2000). keting (CBSM) is proposed as a pragmatic alternative to traditional
The value-belief-norms (VBN) theory is arguably the most popular information-intensive campaigns for behavioral change (McKenzie-
of moral theories in investigating pro-environmental behavior Mohr, 2000).
(Bronfman et al., 2015; Janmaimool and Denpaiboon, 2016; Lopez- The tools used by CBSM include communication, incentives,
Mosquera and Sanchez, 2012). It provides a social-psychological fra- norming and social diffusion. The CBSM has been studied in the context
mework for examining normative factors promoting sustainable atti- of, for example, fostering sustainable behavior (paper reduction, com-
tude and behaviors, which links personality elements, beliefs about mingled recycling, purchasing environmentally preferred products) at a
human-environment relations, and the sense of moral obligation to pro- university (Cole and Fieselman, 2013), and promoting waste recycling
environmental behaviors (Stern et al., 1999). The theory suggests that behavior of households (Haldeman and Turner, 2009; Linder et al.,
pro-environmental behaviors are more likely to appear when people 2018) and of tailgaters in a sporting event (Martin et al., 2015). We did
value the collective wellbeing over personal interest. not find any examples of CBSM used in the context of e-waste and
The relationship among variables of the VBN theory has been em- circular economy.
pirically studied and verified in different settings for addressing varying The CBSM approach is based on social psychology and the idea that
environmental behaviors (Turaga et al., 2010) but examples from the e- behavioral changes are effective when pushed by ‘real’ people and at
waste and circular economy domains are limited in both number and community levels (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). It provides a five-step
scope. The VBN theory was used – in combination with other theories – guideline for behavioral change interventions – selecting behaviors,
to evaluate residents’ willingness to participate in e-waste in USA identifying barriers and benefits, developing strategies, piloting, and
(Saphores et al., 2012) and to examine consumers’ perceptions towards implementation and evaluation. Social concern for status is a key
reuse and recycling of e-products in Finland (Yla-Mella et al., 2015). trigger for consumption, and therefore interventions based on social
However, the available studies do not evaluate the constructs of VBN influence may be effective in changing consumer behavior (O'Rourke
theory using statistical analysis and are inconclusive regarding the and Lollo, 2015). The resources (in terms of time and money) required
significance of moral constructs in defining e-waste and circular for the interpersonal communication in the CBSM programs has been
economy related behaviors. highlighted as the major issue in implementing this behavioral change

4
K. Parajuly, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6 (2020) 100035

strategy (Haldeman and Turner, 2009).

3.5. Nudging

Nudging is based on the assumption that humans are not exclusively

rational beings and do not always act based on their knowledge and
intentions because their decision making is often not mindful and can
be influenced by heuristics and biases (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008).
People’s failure to always make rational choices works against the goal
of behavioral change frameworks based on the utility-maximization
assumption (e.g. economic incentives). To address this, two concepts –
choice architecture and libertarian paternalism – have been proposed
by behavioral economists (Sunstein, 2015). Based on these two con-
cepts, a ‘nudge’ helps people without compulsion, but ‘paternalizes’
Fig. 3. Elements of behavioral and techno-economic aspects of the circular
them with a gentle push towards the ‘right choice’ (Leonard, 2008). In economy and potential intervention tools for behavioral change.
recent years, ‘nudging’ has been increasingly used as an umbrella term
and is known as a low-cost solution for promoting pro-environmental
behavior (Ölander and Thøgersen, 2014). personal norms) of human behavior (Fig. 3). Conventional approaches
Contrary to other approaches that seek to completely change a be- to addressing this issue include initiatives such as information cam-
havior, nudges rely on subtle ques to influence on how people act – paigns, economic incentives, and stricter regulations, whereas the use
without them even noticing it. Nudging evolved from the field of be- of behavioral insight in such initiatives are still rare. We can draw from
havioral economics, which unlike conventional economic theories, literature that despite imperfections, behavioral theories and inter-
suggests that a) material payoffs are not the sole driver of human be- vention tools are useful in addressing these social and psychological
haviors, b) social norms and context are important motivators, and c) factors in order to drive pro-environmental practices. This conveys an
cognitive limitations lead to irrational decisions (Carlsson and optimistic message on the potential for integrating behavioral strategies
Johansson-Stenman, 2012). An example of these elements coming into along the different lifecycle stages of e-products to achieve a more
play is the significant difference between ‘willingness to pay’ and circular economy.
‘willingness to accept’ reported by empirical studies (Horowitz and
McConnell, 2002). 4.1. Challenges and opportunities
Nudges have been tested and reported to be effective in reducing
food waste (Kallbekken and Sælen, 2013) and plastic waste (Rivers The gap between circular economy principles and consumer prac-
et al., 2017), and promoting more expensive green energy (Ebeling and tices may be bridged with the help of behavioral insights without sig-
Lotz, 2015). In the context of e-products, research examples include use nificantly altering the product lifecycle systems. Behavioral strategies
of nudge to promote more durable products (Cerulli-Harms et al., 2018) may be used to promote, for example, purchase of ‘green’ products or
and to encourage repair, leasing and purchase of ‘greener’ mobile alternative business models (such as leasing). Similarly, strategies may
phones (Stefansdotter et al., 2016). In both cases, the experimental seek to encourage product reuse and repair for product lifetime ex-
trials based on simulated situation produced promising results for tension during the use stage. Finally, at the end of a product’s life,
nudges but their implementation in real-world setting is not known. behavioral interventions can be designed to motivate users and to fa-
Nudging is seen as a more rational approach to efficiently address cilitate timely and proper disposal for better management of e-waste.
individual behavior in environmental policies (Gsottbauer and van den The understanding of the socio-economic and psychological factors
Bergh, 2010). There are examples of investigations commissioned by influencing human behaviors can help designing effective strategies to
governments as well as non-governmental bodies, mainly focusing on engage individuals and businesses in a more circular economy. The
the policy aspects of user behavior. However, the initiative of im- opportunities and challenges in implementing behavioral insights
plementing evidence-based intervention is still in its infancy. Nudges during purchase, use, and EoL management are summarized below.
can be an attractive policy tool because of their low implementation
cost (Momsen and Stoerk, 2014) but there is not enough evidence to 4.1.1. Promoting green products
claim that the process of designing effective nudges is inexpensive. Displaying expected product lifespan as a label on e-products can
Nudges are context-specific, and not all nudging strategies are equally influence purchase decisions and the influence may vary across dif-
effective to tackle a particular behavior. For example, ‘defaults’ are ferent products (EESC, 2016). When designed properly, such labels can
proven to be an effective nudge strategy for promoting green energy, be used as a behavioral intervention to achieve the desired outcome
while ‘priming’ – another nudge strategy – is found to have no or even (e.g. promoting ‘greener’ products). Users were less likely to choose the
negative effect (Momsen and Stoerk, 2014). A thorough methodological most energy-efficient television set when the European energy label
approach is therefore required to come up with the right nudging was changed from a scale of ‘A to G’ to the scale of ‘A+++ to D’
strategy. There are also controversies and critics of behavioral inter- (Ölander and Thøgersen, 2014). This is an example of ‘framing’, a
ventions based on nudging, which is accused of being manipulative and nudging strategy, with undesired outcome (Schubert, 2017), which may
unethical and nudges are even argued to be unfit for tackling society’s be avoided by carefully using behavioral insights in the process of de-
‘major ills’ such as climate change (Goodwin, 2012). signing interventions.
Designing ‘green’ labels for e-products based on lifecycle impact
4. Relevance to the circular economy assessment could be a challenging task given the multiplicity of product
models and features in different e-products, which makes it difficult to
Transition towards a circular economy is not possible without a compare two items. Research also suggests that not all product types
fundamental change in consumer behaviors regarding green purchase, are equally associated with ethical issues for consumers. In one study,
adaptation to new business models and acceptance of product up- consumers associated food items most strongly to ethical issues (in-
grading that involves repair and remanufacturing (Planing, 2015). This cluding environmental) whereas brown goods (i.e. consumer electro-
will require addressing not only the extrinsic attributes (e.g. infra- nics such as TV and stereos) were considered to have the weakest links
structure and incentives), but also intrinsic attributes (e.g. values and (Wheale and Hinton, 2007). Such an issue may pose as a barrier to

5
K. Parajuly, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6 (2020) 100035

promoting green e-products because they do not receive equal attention because of different financial and social enticements in different
from consumers as, for example, organic food products during pur- countries. Structural conditions such as convenience of recycling and
chase. In addition, purchase of e-products occur much less frequently the nature of EoL management systems across different countries and
compared to other everyday consumer items. This makes it more regions also come into play (Kumar, 2019; Otto et al., 2018). Moreover,
challenging to develop buying ‘green’ e-products as a pro-environ- recycling behaviors are shaped by personal norms that vary with peo-
mental habit in consumers. ple’s knowledge and beliefs about environmental impacts as well as
cultural norms that vary with ethnicity and collective values (Saphores
4.1.2. Circular business models et al., 2012). These issues, together with the more complex nature of e-
Consumer habits and routines formed by linear business models waste, need attention in the designing of behavioral interventions to
serve as a behavioral barrier in changing the status quo in consumption facilitate a more circular economy.
practices. A transition towards the circular economy will require
leveraging the power of both rational (e.g. economic) as well as non- 4.2. Policy implications
rational (e.g. moral) motives in order to change consumer habits
(Planing, 2015). This applies for mainstreaming of alternative business The role of users and impacts of their action in a circular economy
models such as leasing for consumer e-products as well as for creating have been largely ignored in policy interventions. The European action
demands for refurbished and remanufactured products (Bittar, 2018; plan for the Circular Economy (European Commission, 2015) touches
van Weelden et al., 2016v). upon the need for public awareness campaigns to change behavior, but
Despite the potential economic and environmental benefits of it does not address the well-known knowledge-action gap or the psy-
business models based on remanufacturing and/or product-service chological and social aspects of consumption in a circular economy.
system, their adoption in industries are not widespread (Linder and Two other key European interventions covering e-products – WEEE and
Williander, 2017). Remanufacturing is especially less common for Ecodesign Directives – do not include end users in their scopes. On the
consumer products – an issue that cannot be solved by traditional ‘green bright side, although policies traditionally have been focused on ‘reg-
marketing’ approach without considering behavioral aspects of the ulatory’ tools like taxes and permits, behavioral elements, and the fact
buyers (Vogtlander et al., 2017). In addition, the design of products and that they can be facilitated with business models and infrastructure, are
business models needs to expand beyond the physical characteristics in increasingly becoming part of the toolbox for policy making (OECD,
order to encompass the human aspects of consumption (Wastling et al., 2017).
2018). Despite the ongoing debate on ethical issues, nudges are becoming
increasingly popular in recent years. Changing defaults, one type of
4.1.3. E-waste management nudging strategy, has proven its strength as an alternative to economic
The recast of WEEE Directive has set a new minimum e-waste col- incentives and has been the go-to tool for behavioral interventions at
lection target of 65 % (based on the weight of e-products put on the policy level (Ebeling and Lotz, 2015; Tannenbaum et al., 2017). The
market during the three preceding years) (European Parliament, 2012). evidence in the favor of nudging for environmental policies is strong,
Many countries in Europe are struggling to meet this new target however, the application of these insights is not straightforward and
whereas stockpiling of used e-products in households has been a major needs to address the complexities of behavioral interventions to be a
factor contributing to the lower collection and recycling rates success (Moseley and Stoker, 2013). Nudges are known to be cost-ef-
(Nowakowski, 2016). Improper disposal and stockpiling of EoL pro- fective (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008), can be designed and implemented
ducts can be partly attributed to the lack of flexibility and convenience in different forms and they can easily be combined with other theore-
of the official e-waste collection systems offered to consumers. Factors tical frameworks of behavioral interventions (Linder et al., 2018).
such as behavioral costs and environmental motivations at the in- Nevertheless, there is no one-size-fits-all behavioral solution to varying
dividual level are therefore important, which may be influenced more problems across the product lifecycle and therefore they require cus-
effectively by social enticements than more costly structural improve- tomized interventions.
ments (Otto et al., 2018). Finally, although everyday consumers play an important role, a
The nature of e-waste poses additional challenges in designing be- transition towards the circular economy is not possible without the
havioral interventions compared to other product and waste categories. behavioral changes of structural actors. Besides reuse, repair and re-
In some countries, recycling behavior has become a social norm and cycling, the circular economy envisages alternative models such as
people may be stigmatized for not recycling their household waste access models or product-service systems that are focused more on
(Thomas and Sharp, 2013). However, e-waste is a relatively new stream fulfilling customers’ need than on selling more products (Reim et al.,
of waste that is usually not discarded with other household waste. E- 2015). To achieve this, a collaborative approach from markets, in-
waste is perceived as valuable and clean, which helps to discount the stitutions and policy makers is crucial, which requires changes in be-
urgency factor of waste disposal – partly explaining why people don’t havior of structural actors, namely businesses and governments
mind stockpiling EoL products at home (Casey et al., 2019). Behavioral (O’Rourke and Lollo, 2015). The lack of collaboration among stake-
interventions aiming to improve the e-waste collection situation need to holders in the product lifecycle has been identified as a significant
take into account these nuances within the waste collection practice. barrier in building a circular system for e-products in the EU (Parajuly,
It is worth mentioning here that the main objective of the WEEE 2017). A proactive role of businesses and governments is therefore
Directive is not only to facilitate recycling, but also to prevent the needed to negate the institutional barriers such as inertia and bureau-
generation of e-waste, for example, by the means of reuse. The Directive cracy.
also emphasizes that the recycling and any other form of resource re-
covery should occur in a manner that the overall lifecycle impacts of e- 5. Future research
products are minimized. It is therefore important to ensure that beha-
vioral interventions applied to improve e-waste collection is matched There are behavioral scientists/economists and environmental psy-
with collection and resource recovery infrastructure that are aligned chologists, and then there are engineers and policy makers. There is a
with the goals to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the en- gap between the behavioral research and the understanding of the
vironment and human health. techno-sphere of e-products’ lifecycle. This serves as a major barrier in
It is also important to consider the variations in different geo- designing behavioral interventions to promote circular economy for e-
graphical, cultural and techno-economic settings that have significant products. An awareness of behavioral elements and strategies, com-
influence on consumer behaviors. E-waste recycling behaviors can vary bined with product lifecycle system knowledge, will allow designing

6
K. Parajuly, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6 (2020) 100035

effective interventions. Behavioral interventions without the knowl- management infrastructure (e.g. collection systems) and business
edge of techno-economic aspects of circular economy and e-products models that seek to facilitate reuse and repair of e-products.
may produce insufficient or even opposite results. Behavioral insights
alone are not enough, for example, to realize that the change in pur- Declaration of Competing Interest
chasing behavior can yield better environmental results than recycling
of products (Byerly et al., 2018) or to identify the intangible product The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
properties that shape the reuse of e-products (Makov et al., 2018). On interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
the other hand, techno-economic models alone are not enough to rea- ence the work reported in this paper.
lize that the factors (e.g. values and environmental attitudes) behind
waste reduction and reuse practice may not be the same as those Acknowledgement
driving the success of structured recycling schemes (Barr et al., 2013).
The nature of target behaviors can be different: some meant to last We want to thank Tamar Makov for her feedback on the manuscript.
for a long period, while others may be one-off. Interventions should try This project has received funding from the Irish Research Council and
to address behaviors considering the most relevant attributes linked to from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
them, which may be based on part or the whole of one or more beha- programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No
vioral theories. Although solid evidence of its success are not sufficient 713279.
(Kosters and Van der Heijden, 2015; Vetter and Kutzner, 2016), nud-
ging may carry a unique potential among the available frameworks as a Appendix A. Supplementary data
‘novel’ instrument for behavioral interventions especially at the policy
level (Stefansdotter et al., 2016). Nudges can also be used by other Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
stakeholders to promote actions particularly in situations where less online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100035.
frequent decision-making is required. The potential use of nudging in
the context of e-waste and circular economy deserves further in- References
vestigation.
It is important to emphasize that people’s behaviors are linked to a Aadland, D., Caplan, A.J., 2003. Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection
whole array of infrastructural opportunities and are dictated by their and mitigation of hypothetical Bias. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85, 492–502.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50,
surroundings. Therefore, behavioral change interventions are not only 179–211.
about changing individuals’ consumption habits, but also about Allcott, H., Mullainathan, S., 2010. Behavior and energy policy. Science 327, 1204–1205.
creating favorable environments to perform certain actions. Although Atasu, A., 2018. Operational perspectives on extended producer responsibility. J. Ind.
Ecol.
potentially helpful in drafting effective policies and designing cost-ef- Atlason, R.S., Giacalone, D., Parajuly, K., 2017. Product design in the circular economy:
fective infrastructure for public involvement, use of behavioral insights users’ perception of end-of-life scenarios for electrical and electronic appliances. J.
in technological solutions for environmental problems is not widely Clean. Prod. 168, 1059–1069.
Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R., Blumenthal, K., Gill, S.F., Kern, M., Micheli, P., Magpantay, E.,
practiced (Allcott and Mullainathan, 2010). And even when such in- Huisman, J., 2015. E-waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications, Reporting and
itiatives are taken, not having a thorough understanding of user be- Indicators. United Nations University, IAS - SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany.
haviors and the science behind behavioral interventions may lead to Baldé, C., Forti, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann, P., 2017. The Global e-waste Monitor – 2017.
United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) &
poor application with disappointing results and loss of resources used in
International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Vienna. http://
the initiative (Davis et al., 2015). ewastemonitor.info/.
Systematically identifying target outcomes first, and then designing Bamberg, S., 2013. Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: a stage model of self-
behavioral interventions to achieve those context-specific targets may regulated behavioral change. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 151–159.
Barr, S., Guilbert, S., Metcalfe, A., Riley, M., Robinson, G.M., Tudor, T.L., 2013. Beyond
be a more realistic strategy than seeking to permanently alter general recycling: an integrated approach for understanding municipal waste management.
consumers’ attitudes and behaviors concerning circular economy. Appl. Geogr. 39, 67–77.
Identifying right points of intervention in the product lifecycle will Bittar, Ad.V., 2018. Selling remanufactured products: does consumer environmental
consciousness matter? J. Clean. Prod. 181, 527–536.
require a thorough system understanding of product lifecycle and the Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., Geller, E.S., Lehman, P.K., Postmes, T., 2012. Comparing the
related techno-economic aspects, whereas designing effective inter- effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat.
vention will require socio-behavioral insights. More interdisciplinary Clim. Chang. 3, 413–416.
Botetzagias, I., Dima, A.-F., Malesios, C., 2015. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior
research is needed in order to investigate the rationale behind users’ in the context of recycling: the role of moral norms and of demographic predictors.
actions and the significance of user behaviors in product lifecycle and to Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 95, 58–67.
explore possibilities of matching and influencing those behaviors Breivik, K., Armitage, J.M., Wania, F., Jones, K.C., 2014. Tracking the global generation
and exports of e-waste. Do existing estimates add up? Environ. Sci. Technol. 48,
through interventions.
8735–8743.
In the context of facilitating a more circular economy for e-products, Bronfman, N., Cisternas, P., López-Vázquez, E., Maza, C., Oyanedel, J., 2015.
we recommend that the future research should particularly focus on the Understanding attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors in a chilean community.
Sustainability 7, 14133–14152.
following aspects of consumer behavior.
Byerly, H., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P.J., Hammond Wagner, C., Palchak, E., Polasky, S.,
Ricketts, T.H., Schwartz, A.J., Fisher, B., 2018. Nudging pro-environmental behavior:
a Empirically understanding the challenges (intrinsic and extrinsic evidence and opportunities. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 159–168.
attributes of consumer behavior) to encourage their participation in Camacho-Otero, J., Boks, C., Pettersen, I., 2018. Consumption in the circular economy: a
literature review. Sustainability 10, 2758.
the adoption of more circular business models, repair/reuse prac- Carlsson, F., Johansson-Stenman, O., 2012. Behavioral economics and environmental
tices and proper collection of e-waste: For example, understanding policy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Economics 4, 75–99.
why people tend to stockpile used e-products at home instead of Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., 2001. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay
differ in choice experiments? J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 41, 179–192.
discarding them in proper and timely manner. Casey, K., Lichrou, M., Fitzpatrick, C., 2019. Treasured trash? A consumer perspective on
b Establishing a systematic and methodological approach to design small Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) divestment in Ireland.
and test effective behavioral intervention tools for promoting de- Resources, Conservation and Recycling 145, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2019.02.015.
sired consumer practices. Given the promising prospects of the Cerulli-Harms, A., Suter, J., Landzaat, W., Duke, C., Diaz, A.R., Porsch, L., Peroz, T.,
‘nudging’ strategy, design and testing of better choice architecture Kettner, S., Thorun, C., Svatikova, K., Vermeulen, J., Smit, T., Dekeulenaer, F.,
could be a focus. Lucica, E., 2018. Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular
Economy. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/ec_
c Integrating behavioral elements into national/regional policies on e-
circular_economy_final_report_0.pdf.
waste and using behavioral change strategies in the design of EoL

7
K. Parajuly, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6 (2020) 100035

Cherry, C., Scott, K., Barrett, J., Pidgeon, N., 2018. Public acceptance of resource-effi- Kosters, M., Van der Heijden, J., 2015. From mechanism to virtue: evaluating Nudge
ciency strategies to mitigate climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. theory. Evaluation 21, 276–291.
Cole, E.J., Fieselman, L., 2013. A community‐based social marketing campaign at Pacific Kriwet, A., Zussman, E., Seliger, G., 1995. Systematic integration of design-for-recycling
University Oregon. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 14, 176–195. into product design. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 38, 15–22.
Coughlan, D., Fitzpatrick, C., McMahon, M., 2018. Repurposing end of life notebook Kumar, A., 2019. Exploring young adults’ e-waste recycling behaviour using an extended
computers from consumer WEEE as thin client computers – a hybrid end of life theory of planned behaviour model: a cross-cultural study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
strategy for the Circular Economy in electronics. J. Clean. Prod. 192, 809–820. 141, 378–389.
Darnton, A., 2008. Reference Report: an Overview of Behaviour Change Models and Their Le, H.-L., Yamasue, E., Okumura, H., Ishihara, K.N., 2013. Analysis of Intentions to
Uses. Government Social Research. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ Recycle Electronic Waste (E-Waste) Using the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Case
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498065/Behaviour_ Study in Urban Areas of Vietnam. Springer, Japan, Tokyo, pp. 73–79.
change_reference_report_tcm6-9697.pdf. Leonard, T.C., 2008. Richard H. Thaler, Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving decisions
Davis, R., Campbell, R., Hildon, Z., Hobbs, L., Michie, S., 2015. Theories of behaviour and about health, wealth, and happiness. Const. Political Econ. 19, 356–360.
behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Liebig, G., Rommel, J., 2014. Active and forced choice for overcoming status quo Bias: a
Health Psychol. Rev. 9, 323–344. field experiment on the adoption of “No junk mail” stickers in Berlin, Germany. J.
Davis, T., Hennes, E.P., Raymond, L., 2018. Cultural evolution of normative motivations Consum. Policy 37, 423–435.
for sustainable behaviour. Nat. Sustain. 1, 218–224. Linder, M., Williander, M., 2017. Circular business model innovation: inherent un-
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., Rayp, G., 2005. Do consumers care about ethics? certainties. Bus. Strategy Environ. 26, 182–196.
Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. J. Consum. Aff. 39, 363–385. Linder, N., Lindahl, T., Borgstrom, S., 2018. Using behavioural insights to promote food
Dwivedy, M., Mittal, R.K., 2013. Willingness of residents to participate in e-waste re- waste recycling in urban households-evidence from a longitudinal field experiment.
cycling in India. Environ. Dev. 6, 48–68. Front. Psychol. 9, 352.
Ebeling, F., Lotz, S., 2015. Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs. Lopez-Mosquera, N., Sanchez, M., 2012. Theory of Planned Behavior and the Value-
Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 868. Belief-Norm Theory explaining willingness to pay for a suburban park. J. Environ.
Echegaray, F., Hansstein, F.V., 2017. Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic Manage. 113, 251–262.
waste recycling: the case of Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 180–190. Makov, T., Fishman, T., Chertow, M.R., Blass, V., 2018. What affects the secondhand
EESC, 2016. The Influence of Lifespan Labelling on Consumers. European Economic and value of smartphones: evidence from eBay. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (3), 549–559.
Social Committee, Brussels. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/16_123_ Martin, N.T., Ross, S.R., Irwin, R.L., 2015. Utilizing community-based social marketing in
duree-dutilisation-des-produits_complet_en.pdf. a recycling intervention with tailgaters. J. Intercoll. Sport. 8, 57–81.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the Circular Economy (Vol. 1): Economic Martin, V.Y., Weiler, B., Reis, A., Dimmock, K., Scherrer, P., 2017. ‘Doing the right thing’:
and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. https://www. How social science can help foster pro-environmental behaviour change in marine
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur- protected areas. Mar. Policy 81, 236–246.
Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf. McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2000. Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to commu-
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019. Circular Economy. https://www. nity-based social marketing. J. Soc. Issues 56, 543–554.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy. McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2011. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to
European Commission, 2015. Communication COM (2015) 614/2: Closing the Loop–An Community-Based Social Marketing. New society publishers.
EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ Michaud, C., Llerena, D., 2011. Green consumer behaviour: an experimental analysis of
EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614. willingness to pay for remanufactured products. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 408–420.
European Parliament, 2003. Directive 2002/96/EU of the European Parliament and of the Momsen, K., Stoerk, T., 2014. From intention to action: Can nudges help consumers to
Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). choose renewable energy? Energy Policy 74, 376–382.
Off. J. Eur. Union. Moseley, A., Stoker, G., 2013. Nudging citizens? Prospects and pitfalls confronting a new
European Parliament, 2009. Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of heuristic. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 79, 4–10.
the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign Nduneseokwu, C., Qu, Y., Appolloni, A., 2017. Factors influencing consumers’ intentions
requirements for energy-related products (recast). Off. J. Eur. Union. to participate in a formal E-Waste collection system: a case study of Onitsha, Nigeria.
European Parliament, 2012. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Sustainability 9, 881.
Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast). Nixon, H., Saphores, J.-D.M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2009. Understanding
Off. J. Eur. Union. preferences for recycling electronic waste in California: the influence of environ-
European Union, 2014. Flash Eurobarometer 388 “Attitudes of Europeans Towards Waste mental attitudes and beliefs on willingness to pay. Environ. Behav. 41, 101–124.
Management and Resource Efficiency”. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/ Nnorom, I.C., Ohakwe, J., Osibanjo, O., 2009. Survey of willingness of residents to par-
publicopinion/flash/fl_388_en.pdf. ticipate in electronic waste recycling in Nigeria – a case study of mobile phone re-
Frisk, E., Larson, K.L., 2011. Educating for sustainability: competencies & practices for cycling. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1629–1637.
transformative action. J. Sustain. Educ. 2, 1–20. Nowakowski, P., 2016. The influence of residents’ behaviour on waste electrical and
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected electronic equipment collection effectiveness. Waste Manage. Res. 34, 1126–1135.
transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Nunes, P.A.L.D., Schokkaert, E., 2003. Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent
Prod. 114, 11–32. valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 45, 231–245.
Goodwin, T., 2012. Why we should reject ‘Nudge’. Politics 32, 85–92. O’Rourke, D., Lollo, N., 2015. Transforming consumption: from decoupling, to behavior
Gsottbauer, E., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2010. Environmental policy theory given change, to system changes for sustainable consumption. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
bounded rationality and other-regarding preferences. Environ. Resour. Econ. (Dordr.) 40, 233–259.
49, 263–304. OECD, 2017. Tackling Environmental Problems with the Help of Behavioural Insights.
Guagnano, G.A., 2001. Altruism and market-like behavior: an analysis of willingness to OECD Publishing, Paris.
pay for recycled paper products. Popul. Environ. 22, 425–438. Ölander, F., Thøgersen, J., 2014. Informing versus nudging in environmental policy. J.
Habib, K., Parajuly, K., Wenzel, H., 2015. Tracking the flow of resources in electronic Consum. Policy 37, 341–356.
waste - the case of end-of-Life computer hard disk drives. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, Otto, S., Kibbe, A., Henn, L., Hentschke, L., Kaiser, F.G., 2018. The economy of E-waste
12441–12449. collection at the individual level: a practice oriented approach of categorizing de-
Haldeman, T., Turner, J.W., 2009. Implementing a community-based social marketing terminants of E-waste collection into behavioral costs and motivation. J. Clean. Prod.
program to increase recycling. Soc. Mar. Q. 15, 114–127. 204, 33–40.
Horowitz, J.K., McConnell, K.E., 2002. A review of WTA/WTP studies. J. Environ. Econ. Parajuly, K., 2017. Circular Economy in E-Waste Management: Resource Recovery &
Manage. 44, 426–447. Design For End-of-Life. University of Southern Denmark.
Huisman, J., Leroy, P., Tertre, F., Söderman, M.L., Chancerel, P., Cassard, D., Løvik, A.N., Parajuly, K., Wenzel, H., 2017. Potential for circular economy in household WEEE
Wäger, P., Kushnir, D., Rotter, V.S., Mählitz, P., Herreras, L., Emmerich, J., Hallberg, management. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 272–285.
A., Habib, H., Wagner, M., Downes, S., 2017. Prospecting Secondary Raw Materials in Parajuly, K., Habib, K., Cimpan, C., Liu, G., Wenzel, H., 2016. End-of-life resource re-
the Urban Mine and Mining Wastes (ProSUM) - Final Report. Brussels, Belgium. covery from emerging electronic products – a case study of robotic vacuum cleaners.
Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on J. Clean. Prod. 137, 652–666.
Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change : A Report to the Sustainable Parajuly, K., Kuehr, R., Awasthi, A.K., Fitzpatrick, C., Lepawsky, J., Smith, E., Widmer, R.,
Development Research Network. Centre for Environmental Strategy. Zeng, X., 2019. Future E-Waste Scenarios. StEP (Bonn), UNU ViE-SCYCLE (Bonn) &
Janmaimool, P., Denpaiboon, C., 2016. Evaluating determinants of rural Villagers’ en- UNEP IETC (Osaka). https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:7440/FUTURE_E-
gagement in conservation and waste management behaviors based on integrated WASTE_SCENARIOS_UNU_190829_low_screen.pdf.
conceptual framework of Pro-environmental behavior. Life Sci. Soc. Policy 12, 12. Planing, P., 2015. Business model innovation in a circular economy reasons for non-ac-
Jiménez-Parra, B., Rubio, S., Vicente-Molina, M.-A., 2014. Key drivers in the behavior of ceptance of circular business models. Open J. Bus. Model Innov. 1.
potential consumers of remanufactured products: a study on laptops in Spain. J. Reim, W., Parida, V., Örtqvist, D., 2015. Product–service Systems (PSS) business models
Clean. Prod. 85, 488–496. and tactics – a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 61–75.
Kaiser, F.G., Ranney, M., Hartig, T., Bowler, P.A., 1999. Ecological behavior, environ- Rivers, N., Shenstone-Harris, S., Young, N., 2017. Using nudges to reduce waste? The case
mental attitude, and feelings of responsibility for the environment. Eur. Psychol. 4, of Toronto’s plastic bag levy. J. Environ. Manage. 188, 153–162.
59–74. Salazar, G., Mills, M., Verissimo, D., 2019. Qualitative impact evaluation of a social
Kallbekken, S., Sælen, H., 2013. ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win marketing campaign for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 33, 634–644.
environmental measure. Econ. Lett. 119, 325–327. Saphores, J.-D.M., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2007. California house-
Knussen, C., Yule, F., 2008. “I’m not in the habit of recycling”: the role of habitual be- holds’ willingness to pay for ‘green’ electronics. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 50,
havior in the disposal of household waste. Environ. Behav. 40, 683–702. 113–133.

8
K. Parajuly, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6 (2020) 100035

Saphores, J.-D.M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2012. Willingness to engage in a pro- sustainable behaviour. Nat. Sustain. 1, 28–30.
environmental behavior: an analysis of e-waste recycling based on a national survey van Weelden, E., Mugge, R., Bakker, C., 2016v. Paving the way towards circular con-
of U.S. Households. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 60, 49–63. sumption: exploring consumer acceptance of refurbished mobile phones in the Dutch
Schubert, C., 2017. Green nudges: do they work? Are they ethical? Ecol. Econ. 132, market. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 743–754.
329–342. Vetter, M., Kutzner, F., 2016. Nudge me if you can - how defaults and attitude strength
Stefansdotter, A., Steen-Knudsen, J., Flack, M., Hansen, P.G., 2016. Nudging for interact to change behavior. Compr. Results Soc. Psychol. 1, 8–34.
Sustainable Consumption of Electronics Products (in Swedish). Nordic Council of Vogtlander, J.G., Scheepens, A.E., Bocken, N.M.P., Peck, D., 2017. Combined analyses of
Ministers. costs, market value and eco-costs in circular business models: eco-efficient value
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review creation in remanufacturing. J. Remanuf. 7, 1–17.
and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317. Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Yin, J., Zhang, X., 2011. Willingness and behavior towards e-waste
Steininger, K., Lininger, C., Droege, S., Roser, D., Tomlinson, L., Meyer, L., 2014. Justice recycling for residents in Beijing city, China. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 977–984.
and cost effectiveness of consumption-based versus production-based approaches in Wang, Z., Guo, D., Wang, X., 2016a. Determinants of residents’ e-waste recycling beha-
the case of unilateral climate policies. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A 24, 75–87. viour intentions: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 850–860.
Stern, P.C., 2000. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of en- Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Guan, D., 2016b. Take responsibility for electronic-waste disposal.
vironmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56, 407–424. Nature 536, 23–25.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-Norm Wang, B., Ren, C., Dong, X., Zhang, B., Wang, Z., 2019. Determinants shaping willingness
theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. towards on-line recycling behaviour: an empirical study of household e-waste re-
Rev. 6, 81–97. cycling in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 143, 218–225.
Sudmant, A., Gouldson, A., Millward-Hopkins, J., Scott, K., Barrett, J., 2018. Producer Wastling, T., Charnley, F., Moreno, M., 2018. Design for circular behaviour: considering
cities and consumer cities: using production- and consumption-based carbon accounts users in a circular economy. Sustainability 10, 1743.
to guide climate action in China, the UK, and the US. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 654–662. Wheale, P., Hinton, D., 2007. Ethical consumers in search of markets. Bus. Strategy
Sunstein, C.R., 2015. Behavioural Economics, Consumption and Environmental Environ. 16, 302–315.
Protection. Yin, J., Gao, Y., Xu, H., 2014. Survey and analysis of consumers’ behaviour of waste
Tannenbaum, D., Fox, C.R., Rogers, T., 2017. On the misplaced politics of behavioural mobile phone recycling in China. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 517–525.
policy interventions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 130. Yla-Mella, J., Keiski, R.L., Pongracz, E., 2015. Electronic waste recovery in Finland:
Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, consumers’ perceptions towards recycling and re-use of mobile phones. Waste
and Happiness. Yale University Press. Manage. 45, 374–384.
Thomas, C., Sharp, V., 2013. Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., Oates, C.J., 2009. Sustainable consumption: green
its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: a review of social norms and consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev n/a-n/a.
recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 79, 11–20. Zhong, H., Huang, L., 2016. The empirical research on the consumers’ willingness to
Turaga, R.M.R., Howarth, R.B., Borsuk, M.E., 2010. Pro-environmental behavior. Ann. N. participate in E-waste recycling with a points reward system. Energy Procedia 104,
Y. Acad. Sci. 1185, 211–224. 475–480.
van der Linden, S., 2018v. Warm glow is associated with low- but not high-cost