Information and the decision to recycle: Results from a survey of US households
Abstract
This paper relies on a unique dataset collected during a national survey of US households to explore how different sources of information (print, television, radio, family/friends, work/school and others) influence the decision to start recycling. Although print media are influential, it is found that face-to-face communication (through family/friends or work/school) is the most effective medium to get people to start recycling. However, it is even better to provide households with recycling information from multiple sources. The respondents in this study identify concerns about storage space, time and the safety of recycling as the main obstacles to start recycling. In addition, age and ethnicity are statistically significant but not income or education. These findings should be useful for crafting information campaigns designed to boost recycling, although to be successful these campaigns need to incorporate findings from environmental psychology and knowledge of specific communities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A study in the United States showed a significant relationship between age and waste source separation.
“A study in the United States showed a significant relationship between age and waste source separation.”
From Raising Awareness on Solid Waste Management through Formal Education for Sustainability: A Developing Countries Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as [95]
More than 62.5% of urban waste separation aiming sustainability is done by older people.
“More than 62.5% of urban waste separation aiming sustainability is done by older people [95].”
From Raising Awareness on Solid Waste Management through Formal Education for Sustainability: A Developing Countries Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as [95]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 75 · Cited by 149
- Authors
- Nixon, H., & Saphores, J.-D. M.
- Affiliations
- San Jose State University (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Saphores, Jean-Daniel M.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-02-19
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 257-277
- ISSN
- 0964-0568 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0559
- OpenAlex
- W2025098725
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 18.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Environmental Planning and Management (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- University of California, Irvine
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Waste Management and Recycling
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Keywords
- recycling behavior, household recycling, information sources, face-to-face communication, print media, radio and television, barriers to recycling, environmental psychology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review