5.2. Recycling Behavior
Of the total sample group (
n = 2004), 540 of the respondents’ households (26.9%) reported recycling behavior. The rest of the respondents (
n = 1464; 73.1%) with a recycling behavior score of 1 (B = 1), reported no recycling activity in their households. The 26.9% recycling households includes those who, for example, reported very little recycling of one type of recyclable material only. Eighteen percent (18.5%) show very little recycling activity, which is indicated with a recycling score of 2–3. Only 3.3% of the respondents reported that their households often recycle about half or more of all their recyclables (recycling scores greater than 4). The low mean recycling behavior score (x-bar =1.44) confirms the low percentage of households in which recycling behavior is reported (
Table 2).
The recycling behavior construct consists of three components: a “recycling frequency”-item; a “taking responsibility for recycling in the household”-item; and a “recycling quantity”-item (
Table 2). Recycling quantity is measured by the average of the “quantities” reported to be recycled of each of five recyclables (paper, plastic, glass, metal, and compost) reported as being recycled. A comparison of the three main components that make up the recycling behavior construct shows that the average for recycling frequency (x-bar = 1.76) is higher than for taking responsibility (x-bar = 1.44) and for quantities recycled (x-bar = 1.35) (
Table 2, main components). In addition, some respondents (3.4%) indicated that their households sometimes recycle, but failed to indicate recycling quantities of any recyclable materials. These 68 respondents form part of the 18.5% respondents that reported very little recycling activity. The data thus suggest some over-reporting of recycling behavior which mainly originates from the frequency item. Being one of seven items in the behavior construct, the effect of the over-reporting of recycling frequency on recycling behavior is smaller than it would have been if recycling frequency was the only item measured for recycling behavior.
The overall higher self-reporting for recycling frequency compared to recycling quantities is most probably due to two reasons: firstly, it is easier to over-report recycling behavior on a “soft” frequency measurement than on actual physical quantities of items recycled; and secondly, the frequency question was asked first and thus before the reality check of the actual quantities. A possible third reason is that there is no correlation between recycling frequency and recycling quantities. However, the data show that the correlations are significant (
p < 0.001) and of medium to high strength, depending on the recyclable material [
68], i.e., correlation factors between recycling frequency and the “quantity” of paper, glass, metal, plastic, and compostables are 0.723, 0.648, 0.496, 0.671, and 0.467, respectively (
Appendix A,
Table A2). It is noteworthy that paper recycling is probably the most-established in South Africa, with the Ronnie bag collection system operating in many areas for more than 30 years.
Due to the random probability-sampling method the results for recycling behavior can be extrapolated to the South African population in the larger urban areas of the country. Given that the self-reported recycling behavior is expected to be higher than what it would be if measured [
30,
45], the reported results may reflect an optimistic view of the domestic recycling situation in South Africa. However, it should be noted that the purpose of the study was not to gather actual recycling-rate data. Although self-reported, the recycling behavior results provide valuable insight into recycling tendencies in South Africa at a given point in time—after the NEWWA came into effect but before wide implementaton of separation of waste.
The domestic recycling reality, as indicated by the results of this South African study, is that, at the time of the waste recycling survey (November 2010), the majority of South African households (73.1%) in large urban areas did not recycle. Only a small fraction of urban households (3.3%) recycled most of their household waste on a fairly frequent basis.
5.3. Intention to Recycle
The majority of respondents either expressed no intention to recycle or low levels of intention to recycle (x-bar = 3.76) (
Table 3). The results suggest that respondents are more likely to recycle if their recyclables are collected at curbside (x-bar = 4.21) than when they have to take recyclables to collection points (x-bar = 3.42). The likelihood that respondents will recycle also decrease the further the collection points are from their homes. The item that shows the lowest mean score (x-bar = 3.33) is the one implying travelling to a collection point the furthest away.
It should be noted that the items are phrased to capture perceived distances, because a 2 km distance is just around the corner for someone who can drive there, but for someone who has to carry a bag of recyclables, it is a long distance. The role of the convenience factor in intention to recycle is emphasized by the difference in mean scores of two of the items, namely “… if curbside collection for recyclables in area” (x-bar = 4.21) and “if to put recyclables out separately for curbside collection” (x-bar = 3.92). The latter, through the use of the word “separately”, implies multiple sorting of recyclables, which is not so explicitly expressed in the first item. The results thus suggest that people would be more willing to recycle should they be serviced with a 2-bag system which is collected at curbside, compared to multiseparation of recyclables.
The results suggest that the intention to recycle is overruled by the practical reality of being able to recycle. The curbside collection item is the only item with a positive score (x-bar > 4.00) in the IR construct. The majority of respondents feel negative about taking their recyclables to drop-off points (x-bar < 4.00). The willingness to take recyclables to collection points decrease significantly the further the perceived distance to the collection point is. Since the majority of the respondents reported that the household does not have a motor vehicle in the household (
Appendix A,
Table A1), longer distances to recycling points are problematic for household recycling behavior.
5.5. Social Pressure to Recycle (Subjective Norm)
The majority of respondents reported that they experience a lack of social pressure to recycle (x-bar = 3.37) (
Table 5). The two items, “most of the people important to you want you to recycle” and “it is expected of you to recycle” show the lowest mean scores (x-bar = 2.96 and 3.27, respectively), and could indeed be a true reflection of the situation in South Africa, given the small percentage (3.3%) of respondents that reported that they engage in meaningful recycling (B > 4). Thus, extrapolated to the South African population, the individuals among family, friends, neighbors, and other significant people that would expect of others or exert pressure to recycle on others is part of a small group of South Africans. Nonrecyclers do not recycle and therefore would not be able to either be a recycling role-model or exert pressure to recycle in the manner that recyclers would be able to. In fact, someone who recycles would fall outside the norm of this-is-how-things-are-done-around-here, which suggests that the descriptive norm would not be pro-recycling. This is in line with the conclusion of Cialdini and coworkers [
69] (p. 231) that an intervention which focuses on the descriptive social norm will only be successful in cases where the majority of people already conform to the desired behavior. If the majority do not recycle, the person who recycles would rather be considered and feel the odd one out. Minato (2012) also warns that the pressure through descriptive norms decline due to degrading social networks [
70].
Another angle from which to interpret the results is that one would suspect that the respondents with high recycling behavior scores are represented by the high subjective norm scores, but with a correlation of 0.49 this only suggest a relationship of medium strength (
Appendix A,
Table A3). A large percentage of those respondents from reportedly recycling households also do not experience any social pressure to recycle. Thus, it can be argued that the recyclers tap their motivation to recycle from a source independent of what others expect of them. It can be speculated that injunctive norms (moral values) could be a driver for recycling behavior, but because the questionnaire is weak on injunctive norm items, this possibility should be further researched.
5.7. Testing the Theory of Planned Behavior Model
The behavior, intention to recycle and attitude constructs show excellent reliability and internal consistency (
Table 7). The reliability and internal consistency of the subjective norm and perceived behavioral control constructs are good. Thus, it was decided to keep all the items of all constructs.
The results of the SEM analysis show a good fit of the survey data to the TPB theoretical model (
Table 8).
The regression coefficients (βeta) are shown in
Table 9. The proportion of variance explained for IR and B is shown in
Table 10 and
Figure 3.
The TPB explain 46.4% of the variance in intention to recycle and 26.4% of the variance in recycling behavior (B) (
Figure 3).
Fitting the TPB model to the survey data shows that the subjective norm (SN) (β = 0.590) has greater influence than either attitude (A) (β = 0.275) or perceived behavioral control (β = 0.020) on intention to recycle. The relatively strong and significant relationship (β = 0.590; p < 0.0001) between subjective norm and intention to recycle supports H2. Overshadowed by the effect of subjective norm on intention to recycle, attitude results in having a smaller (β = 0.275), though significant (p < 0.0001), effect on intention to recycle (H1). Perceived behavioral control shows an insignificant effect on intention to recycle (β = −0.020; p = 0.54) and thus rejects H3. With R2 = 0.464, the three variables attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control together account for 46.4% of the variance in intention to recycle. Both intention to recycle and perceived behavioral control influence recycling behavior, accounting for 26.4% of the variance in recycling behavior (R2 = 0.264). Perceived behavioral control has a significant effect on recycling behavior (β = 0.276; p < 0.0001) (H5).
The results from this study suggest that perceived behavioral control carries more weight (H
5) than intention to recycle (H
4) in explaining recycling behavior. Typically, in studies where the behavior is likely to not only be affected by personal motivation, but also by other factors such as the availability of resources and access to services, perceived behavioral control appears to have a greater influence on intention [
33]. This is in line with the argument that the effect of perceived behavioral control varies with the availability of curbside recycling schemes [
36].
The small influence of attitude on intention to recycle (
β = 0.275) is in line with findings of Martin et al. (2006) that a positive attitude towards recycling does not guarantee recycling behavior [
72]. The attitude-behavior link proves to be strong where there is no “resources and cooperation” needed [
40]. The relatively weak link between attitude and intention to recycle, which was found in this study, could thus be ascribed to ancillary variables and situational factors not accommodated or explained through the TPB. Although A is not the variable with the strongest/largest effect, attitude does contribute to the intention to recycle. Awareness-raising initiatives to improve people’s attitudes towards recycling have a better chance for success should it include a moral component.
With the TPB explaining 26.4% of the variance in recycling behavior, the results from this study compares well with the Armitage and Conner meta-analysis of 185 behavioral studies dated pre-1998 [
45]. The meta-analysis found that, on average, the TPB explained 27% of the variance in behavior and 39% of the variance in intention to act [
45].
Armitage and Conner (2001) point out that, over the years, researchers measured the IR construct in different ways [
45]. The IR construct is a measure of “how hard people are willing to try or how much effort they would exert to perform the behavior” [
43] (p. 181). Distinguishing between intentions and self-predictions of behavior, it is argued that self-predictions (the likelihood to perform a behavior) provide a better prediction of behavior than intentions [
45]. The inclusion of likelihood to recycle statements in the IR construct is a possible explanation for this study’s higher explanation value of intention to recycle (46.4%) than Armitage and Conner’s meta-analysis average of 39% [
45].
Respondents show a higher probability that they intend to recycle than what their self-reported behavior suggests. In the behavioral sciences this is one of the challenges of predicting behavior [
40]. There are several external factors that influence the path between intention and action even though the best intentions might exist. Examples may include a family crisis, or just forgetting to put out the recyclables, or a breakdown of a motor vehicle which makes it impossible to take recyclables to the drop-off center. The best intention might also be deliberately suppressed or ignored, for example due to unfavorable weather conditions on recycling day. Thus, from a personal point of view a person may be a recycler, but the actual recycling behavior may be absent.
Similar to what other studies showed [
30,
55,
73], this study with 26.4% of the variance explained by the TPB, suggests that there are other variables than those proposed in the TPB that appears to have an effect on recycling behavior.
The importance of perceived behavioral control as the construct with the largest effect on recycling behavior in the TPB model, confirms that people should feel in control of their ability to recycle. One manner in which to promote a sense of control is through buy-in, e.g., through allowing communities to co-design their recycling services, because a waste scheme that is acceptable and functional in one area might not be suitable for another area [
74]. Thus, through co-designing of recycling schemes, the necessary buy-in and awareness of the recycling facilities can be created. Co-designing also creates opportunity for established co-responsibility—a moral imperative (injunctive norm) which has the potential to be more successful at creating social pressure than descriptive norms in a society where recycling behavior is very low. Co-designing of a recycling scheme would also serve as a direct communication of the importance of the communities’ participation in recycling and indicate that the municipality/recycling company takes recycling seriously (descriptive norm). Another advantage of co-designing of recycling schemes would be that potential leaders of the recycling initiative in communities would be identified. These leaders could assist with future recycling related communications and also through playing the part of much-needed role-models. In addition, recycling needs to be reinforced as a normative behavior through, e.g., well-targeted recycling advertisements, awareness creation, and the deliberate visibility of recycling bins.