Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management Quantitative and Qualitative Review

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and
Waste Management
Quantitative and Qualitative Review

Research Study Conducted for
The Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office

September 2002

Contents
Introduction

1

Summary of Findings

4

Waste issues in the public consciousness

9

Attitudes to waste management options

12

Reported behaviour

18

Motivations

21

Local recycling service provision

24

Awareness and information

26

Household waste management

30

Responsibility for waste

32

Charging for waste

34

Appendices
Topic Guide
Recruitment questionnaire
Bibliography
Statistical significance

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Introduction
This report contains the findings of research undertaken by MORI Social
Research Institute on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit.

Background and Objectives
The aim of the survey is to provide the Strategy Unit with an overview of public attitudes towards waste and recycling, to feed into the development of the forthcoming review of the UK Waste Strategy.
The research covered a wide range of areas, in particular:
•

Perceptions of environmental issues and ‘green’ behaviour;

•

Attitudes to household rubbish;

•

Attitudes to the options for waste management;

•

Patterns of behaviour in dealing with household rubbish and recycling;

•

Motivations to recycle;

•

Local recycling service provision;

•

Awareness and information;

•

Responsibility for waste;

•

Household management;

•

Charging for waste.

Survey Design
There were two phases to the research:
•

A review of the existing public opinion research;

•

Original qualitative research to investigate further emerging issues and specific issues of relevance to the Strategy Unit’s review.

The review of existing research summarises the findings of more than 20 public opinion surveys undertaken in the past ten years. It draws predominantly upon national studies but also incorporates, where appropriate, studies at the level of an individual local authority or city such as London. A full list of the studies is appended. The original qualitative research involved four focus groups conducted between
17th - 23rd September 2002. Participants were recruited according to specific recruitment criteria using a recruitment questionnaire (included in the appendices). 1

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

A key recruitment variable in each of the groups was the level of recycling undertaken by participants. It was decided as part of the research design to specifically target ‘medium’ recyclers; that is those people who either currently don’t recycle but would be willing to, or those who already recycle but do not do so regularly. In reality this is a very broad group that in all likelihood represents the majority of people in the UK. Those at either end of the spectrum (for example people who habitually recycle as much as they can, or those who are completely resistant to recycling) were excluded from this particular piece of research. The questions by which people were defined as ‘medium’ recyclers are included in the recruitment questionnaire (appended).
Recruitment was also guiding by:
•

Geographic factors – locations to reflect and compare different regions of the UK, and also neighbouring authorities (Kettering and Daventry) with similar population characteristics but with different recycling rates;

•

Socio-demographic factors – to investigate possible constraints and causes of recycling according to socio-demographic factors, including tenure, dwelling, children in household, access to a garden, and social class. The specific details of the group compositions was as follows:
Group 1: Greenwich, mix of men and women, aged 25-40, social class ABC1, mix of those living in houses/bungalows and flats/maisonettes/room, two thirds without access to a garden, at least one third black and minority ethnic residents, at least one third with children aged 5-16 in the household.
Group 2: Kettering, mix of men and women, aged 30-45, social class C1C2, at least half living in a house, at least half with access to a garden, mix of those with children aged 5-16 in the household.
Group 3: Pendle, mix of men and women, aged 35-50, social class C2DE, at least half with access to a garden, at least one third with children aged 5-16 in the household. Group 4: Daventry, mix of men and women, aged 30-45, social class C1C2, at least half living in a house, at least half with access to a garden, mix of those with children aged 5-16 in the household.
The topic guide (used as an aide memoir by the moderator) was designed by MORI in conjunction with the Strategy Unit, and is included in the Appendices.

2

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Interpretation of the Data / Report structure
This report presents the findings of quantitative and qualitative research, which have been used as complimentary research methodologies in this study. It is therefore important to note the differences between the two types of research and the findings we can reasonably draw from them.
The quantitative research provides ‘hard’ data that is statistically representative.
In this respect it is possible quantify observations and infer them to the wider public, for example ‘one in three people think waste and recycling is an important environmental issue’. Nevertheless it should still be noted that in each case a sample, not the entire population, has been interviewed. Therefore all results are subject to sampling tolerances, which means not all differences are statistically significant. The qualitative research is an interactive process between researcher and participants: it allows respondents’ attitudes and opinions to be explored in detail, and provides an insight into the key reasons underlying their views. However, discussion results are based only on a small cross-section of the public and so findings are illustrative and indicative, not statistically representative. It is not possible to quantify findings or suggest they reflect the attitudes of the wider public, and so these findings are attributed to the participants rather than the public.

Transcripts
The discussions were taped with participants’ permission and edited only to remove the names of the participants and individuals mentioned in the discussions. They are included in an accompanying report under separate cover.

Acknowledgements
MORI would like to thank Alison Sharp and Fiona Thompson at the Strategy
Unit for their help in developing the project and topic guide.

Publication of the Data
As with all our studies, these findings are subject to MORI’s standard Terms &
Conditions of Contract. To protect the Strategy Unit, any press release or publication of the findings of this survey requires the advance approval of
MORI. Such approval will only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation. ©MORI/18286
Checked &Approved:

Ben Page

Checked &Approved:

Philip Downing

3

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Summary of Findings
The salience of waste issues
•

While the public considers the disposal of society’s waste a significant environmental concern, it is not an issue at the forefront of their minds. The transient nature in which it is considered appears insufficient to establish and maintain habitual patterns of recycling;

•

There is potential to increase the salience of waste issues through association with other environmental issues:
- linking waste with global issues such as climate change, which is an issue that people appear particularly aware of and concerned about. The challenge is to successfully make the association between people’s waste disposal behaviour and global concerns in the same way as they have linked climate change to car use and local flooding;
- linking waste to local issues, including street cleaning, litter and the wider
‘liveability’ of the local area. These are all currently high on the public’s agenda, and there are clear associations between ‘rubbish’ in the home and
‘litter’ in the streets and between the aesthetics of the street environment and the visual impact of recycling sites. The existing association appears negative; Recycling in the international context
•

The majority of the public believe the UK’s recycling performance is poor in relation to European counterparts, leading to a desire to ‘catch up’ and learn from best practice;

•

There also appears to be support, although not among all, for supra-national institutions (such as the European Union) to ensure that individual countries meet their responsibilities;

•

In this respect the concept of fairness is very important to people, particularly in the context of recent US policy on the environment which focus group participants consider to demonstrate the potential for individual countries to make selfish decisions based on self interest rather than collective need.

Attitudes to waste management options
•

The public is supportive of recycling, re-use and composting and recognises that these are ‘good’ activities; In contrast, there is a strong sense that landfill is ‘bad’;

4

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management
•

Negative reactions to landfill are evident even without detailed knowledge, because of an instinctive negative reaction to the idea of burying things in the ground. The image of plastic in particular appears to be a powerful symbolic image of landfill in the public consciousness;

•

An adverse side effect of the success of the “recycling good; landfill bad” message appears to be a negative impact on waste minimisation; qualitative research suggests that people do not feel it is necessary to reduce packaging if they are able to readily recycle. This presents a challenge to developing a more detailed understanding of the waste management ‘hierarchy’;

•

An additional barrier is the fact the public feels they have little or no control over waste minimisation and consequently place the responsibility firmly with the Government and manufacturers;

•

Awareness of incineration as a waste management option is very low.
Although contentious, there does not appear to be any absolute rejection of incineration. Rather, acceptance appears, in theory at least, to be conditional upon several requirements, including:
- it is part of a recycling-led strategy where everything that can be recycled has been recycled;
- certain materials are separated out and not incinerated (for example plastics); - operating guidelines are strict and preferably under public control rather than a private company;
- the environmental benefits, such as energy recovery, are emphasised.

Motivations to recycle
•

The public perceive a strong association between recycling and the environment, and consider it to be one of the few activities where people can make a real difference;

•

The effectiveness of environmental messages varies across the public:
- ‘Environmental enthusiasts’ - to some, albeit a minority, environmental motivation alone is sufficient to habitually recycle, even in the face of obstacles such as lack of time or inconvenience;
- ‘the willing majority’ - to the majority of the public environmental motivations are not sufficient alone. It remains an environment-led action, but is conditional upon other factors such as convenience and time, which serve to either ‘trigger’ recycling or negate good intentions;
- A minority of people (as many as 10-15%) do not consider environmental issues to have any relevance to their lives and appear resistant to any measures to encourage recycling.

5

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Local recycling service provision
•

Demand for kerbside collection services is high; three in four say they would recycle more if this was available to them;

•

The initial evidence suggests that this claim is in fact borne out in reality; in
London there is a correlation between the availability of kerbside collection and self-reported levels of recycling (which have more than doubled relative to those who do not have a collection service);

•

Qualitative evidence suggests that access to a collection service also plays a role in catalysing wider environmental awareness; even though many initially only used the service because it was available, the act of participation itself then seems to foster a greater sense of environmental responsibility;

•

It also appears to achieve another crucial objective: establishing recycling as a
‘normal’ activity that is part of daily or weekly lifestyle routines;

•

There is a desire among active recyclers for the collection of a wider range of materials; one in three believes the council doesn’t collect all the things they would like to recycle. These ‘pioneer’ recyclers are important in that they expand the expectations of recycling for others to eventually follow.

Information and awareness
•

Elementary barriers to awareness about waste issues should not be underestimated. For example:
- Only around half of those households with a kerbside collection scheme are aware that this is available to them;
- One in three do not feel informed about which materials can and can’t be recycled; - Two in five don’t know where to recycle locally;
- There are particular information barriers regarding composting.

•

There are also several recycling ‘myths’ which have persisted and negatively impact on recycling - one in three do not believe the council recycles all of the materials collected, while many also believe that recycling costs less;

•

There is a significant information gap around what happens to materials once they have been collected and, more widely, the ‘life-cycle’ of materials and products. The strong association between paper use and the loss of forests demonstrates the effectiveness of linking the ‘source’ material to the product; likewise the association between plastic and landfill demonstrates the potential to link a product to a waste ‘sink’. However this is the exception rather than the rule and once collected waste is considered very much ‘out of sight, out of mind;

6

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management
•

Limited awareness about the availability of recycled products appears a significant barrier to the expansion of ‘green’ consumerism and hence any consumer-led stimulation of demand for recycled materials;

•

People are supportive of the need for greater advertising and information provision, in order to ‘jog’ their memory. Many do not actually think about recycling unless it is brought to their attention, and very few actively seek out information on recycling services;

•

Another important element is effective branding; for example while recycling sites may be easily recognisable and act as visual reminders, at present they are not considered positively in relation to their contribution to the local area;

Household management
•

An understanding of the daily routines and interactions within households is important in understanding what enables or blocks regular patterns of recycling. Four elements appear critical:
- Household dynamics – the presence of someone in the household who encourages or pesters others to recycle. Children can be effective recycling
‘advocates’; while despite many working outside the home, women appear to still set the rules for domestic management;
- Time constraints – two in five people say that they are too busy while a similar proportion do not think recycling fits easily with their daily routine.
In the absence of a strong recycling culture in the UK, convenience becomes one of the key drivers of recycling behaviour. In this respect collection services are preferred to recycling sites and indeed any other scheme which involves a travel or time commitment;
- Psychology of waste – Households appear primarily concerned about untidiness (“mess”) rather than waste (“rubbish”). Therefore the need to recycle can often come into conflict with the need to maintain a clean and tidy home, especially where people have no storage container for recyclable materials. In this respect very basic considerations are in fact the critical factors, for example whether recycling facilities are provided to each home (bins are favoured ahead of bags), whether or not they are of suitable size (people regularly complain they are too small), and whether they can withstand rain and wind;
- Storage space – there appears to be a trade off between some people preferring several bins for multiple separation and those who feel they do not have the physical storage space to accommodate any additional bins.
Storage space outside the home is less of a pressing issue but still affects one in five households.

7

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Responsibility for waste
•

The public do not always consider recycling to be their problem;

•

In some cases this appears to be linked to a recognition of the limitations of public action alone; there is indeed demand for a collective public response led by action from all stakeholders (particularly Government, local authorities and manufacturers); •

Qualitative research suggests that recycling in the workplace could have significant benefits in raising awareness among employees and encouraging them to transfer good habits formed at work to the household.

Charging for waste
•

The idea of charging people on the basis of how much (non-recyclable) rubbish they produce is without doubt a contentious issue;

•

Initial reactions in the qualitative research are almost unanimously negative, not least because participants immediately associate the idea with powerful cultural reference points such as ‘paying extra’ and ‘stealth’ taxation;

•

However, in principle participants were more accepting under certain reassurances which, taken together, suggest there are ‘conditions of acceptance’.
These include:
- Providing there is opportunity to recycle voluntarily (through investments in facilities and infrastructure) before charging is introduced;
- Charging according to how much rubbish is produced, in accordance with the Polluter Pays Principle, with refunds to reward those who recycle and disincentives to those who do not;
- Any revenue generated should be accountable and spent openly on related environmental issues within the local community;
- Responsibility is not placed only on individuals – other stakeholders should be subject to rewards and penalties for their own contribution and performance in relation to recycling and waste minimisation.

•

A further complexity of attitudes towards charging are the practicalities of any scheme. Many were concerned about the disproportionate effect on families, the fact that some people would unfairly avoid the charge, and that it may lead to fly-tipping and therefore contribute negatively to the ‘liveability’ of the local environment;

•

Qualitative research also suggests that people are uneasy with any separate charge outside of the current council tax system, principally because they equate this with ultimately ‘paying twice’;

•

There also appears to be an issue concerning trust in the Government, based, for example, on previous experiences of fuel tax. In this respect there is a considerable amount of ‘cultural baggage’ and historical mistrust.
8

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Waste issues in the public consciousness Perceptions of waste as an environmental problem
The surveys reviewed are unanimous in concluding that the public considers the disposal of society’s waste products as a significant environmental problem; 49% consider it a ‘serious’ problem while a further 45% think it is a ‘fairly’ serious problem1. Furthermore, one in three consider waste and recycling one of the most important environmental issues.
However, such results are achieved when residents are directly asked about waste and recycling. In contrast, the evidence when people are not prompted and instead give spontaneous responses is less convincing; the proportion of people who think it is one of the most important issues falls to just 7%. The issue, therefore, appears not to be about a lack of concern for the environment per se, but more a lack of awareness and consideration on a regular basis. People think of waste only transiently, certainly not enough to first establish and then maintain habitual patterns of recycling. The focus group discussions mirror these findings; in one sense participants were shocked at the level of waste and aware of the nature of the problem, but at the same time recognised this was not an issue they considered part of daily life:
I saw a programme the other day which said we throw away enough rubbish to fill the Albert Hall every hour, that is disgusting, absolutely disgusting
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
I don’t think of it that often because it is not an issue that is raised. We just don’t hear enough about it, there’s not enough awareness
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
You think ‘I really ought to do that’ but you never remember Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
In some respects this is consistent with recent attitudes to environmental issues in general; when asked, the public is very concerned and considers such issues important. Nevertheless, environmental concerns have, to an extent, disappeared from the public agenda since 1989, when they were considered among the most important national issues.

1

Business and the environment, MORI, 1999

9

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Waste in relation to other environmental issues
In respect of the importance attached to waste and recycling relative to other environmental issues, the public considers waste an important issue comparable to GM foods, food safety and animal welfare2. However, it is not considered as important as the global issues of climate change, ozone depletion or loss of rainforests, which continue to define people’s perceptions of environmental problems. Waste issues tend to be considered more within the local context of the
‘liveability’ of the local street/neighbourhood. Significantly, it remains behind other local issues on the public’s agenda, such as litter, dog fouling and street cleaning. MORI research in this area for the Audit Commission reveals that these issues are increasingly important to the public.
In seeking to promote waste and recycling as salient issues there is strong potential to link them to these global and local issues. Linking global issues to how they manifest themselves locally appears to be very powerful; for example in the qualitative discussions the Greenwich group were particularly aware of the association between climate change and local flood potential in relation to the
Thames Barrier. However, while car use was strongly associated with climate change, not as many participants recognised a similar link with waste management options such as landfill and incineration.
The potential for links at the local level to the ‘liveability’ agenda may be even more powerful; recycling has a strong association with quality of the street environment (“rubbish” in the house becomes “litter” outside), while recycling sites can be considered negatively in the liveability context if they are not well maintained or emptied regularly:
They look horrible and messy. When you look at them they are disgusting
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
You do see it as an eyesore
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
I go back and nobody’s emptied it and because they haven’t emptied it, it then gets vandalised
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
I’ve seen it put out there [collection service] and come back home and there’s paper all over
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich

2

Business and the environment, MORI, 1999

10

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Perceptions of recycling in the International context
There is general acknowledgement that recycling performance in the UK lags behind other countries. Quantitative research3 reveals that over half believe the
UK recycles less than other countries, although as many as one third do not know. This is substantiated by the qualitative research; most participants believe the UK performs poorly in relation to other similar countries, and speak positively of recycling initiatives they have heard of or experienced:
In Germany you’d go to shops like Aldi where they charge you for carrier bags and I like that. They have a greener attitude as a nation, the Green Party have gained power in
Government, can you imagine that in this country?
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
They do in Canada, all your tins in one part, and if you don’t divide it up you can get fined. My husband’s family come from Canada and when they come to visit I am so ashamed of the litter; you don’t see any of that over there
Female, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle
In Holland they put a deposit on each of the bottles and you get your deposit back when you return the bottle and they send the bottle to be washed, sterilised and used again.
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
The qualitative research also demonstrates that there is support, although not among all, for supra-national institutions (such as the European Union) to ensure that individual countries meet their responsibilities. In this respect the concept of fairness is very important to people, particularly in the context of recent US policy on the environment which participants consider to demonstrate the potential for individual countries to make selfish decisions based on self interest rather than collective need: the EU would be a bit stronger and sort of say ‘look you are taking the Mickey’, so it is good for somebody else to say ‘look, come on’
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
I think it is helpful if an outside body rules on issues, that’s true about America if you are in control of your own destiny you can make selfish decisions
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry

3

Recycling and packaging from the domestic waste stream, MORI, 1999

11

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Attitudes to waste management options Recycling, re-use and composting
The studies reviewed find overwhelming public support for recycling and composting; MORI studies4,5,6 find that between 94-98% consider it a worthwhile activity. NOP/Waste Watch7 find a “universal acceptance” of recycling as an environmentally friendly waste disposal method while PWA8 conclude that
“without exception, people think that recycling is a positive move”.
These conclusions were further substantiated through the qualitative discussions; some participants consider recycling “totally good”, and even when there is a consideration that there could be adverse side effects (for example around using the car to get to sites), this is seen as more a frustration with local service provision than recycling itself.
Whereas other environmental issues have suffered to varying degrees from a
‘backlash’, the public remains supportive of recycling; only between 11-15% believe that recycling actually does more harm than good. Indeed, some research has concluded that “even though people are aware of some of the negative issues involved in recycling such as energy consumption and non-environmentally friendly processes, these are ignored to support the accepted truth of recycling”.
Recent research suggests that it is not that people are willing to dismiss contrary arguments per se, but rather they accept the chance that not all recycling is without consequences because of its link to a wider environmental ethic, in that the act of recycling also encourages other environmentally-beneficial actions and behaviour.
The public appears similarly positive towards composting; 94% consider it to be an environmentally-beneficial activity. In the qualitative research, even though some participants have concerns about the smell and flies (particularly if composting is on any large scale), the biggest barrier appears to be a lack of information about local service provision and how to go about composting:
I have only heard stories about composting but what I have heard is in the summer it really reeks and is covered in flies
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
People don’t know how to go about composting. I have no idea, you just put it in a bin and then what?
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Recycling and packaging from the domestic waste stream, MORI, 1999
Household behaviour in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001
6 Waste management in Leicestershire, MORI, 2002
7 What people think about waste, NOP/Waste Watch, 1998
8 Consumer attitudes to Packaging, Pegram Walters Associates, 1993
4
5

12

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Participants in the focus groups are also very supportive of reverse-vend schemes that work on the principle of re-use rather than recycling (although the terms tend to be considered interchangeably by the public). The perceptions of returning ‘corona’ bottles, supermarket reward schemes, and the appeal to children are well established in people’s minds. There appears, therefore, strong latent support for refundable deposits and small-scale fiscal incentives.
If you bring back the packaging you get a free bag of potatoes; bring back 20 carrier bags and we will give you
20 points off your shopping
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
I mean bottles for a start, if you start charging people 5p on top of it people would do it, kids would love it as well
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich

Landfill
Just as there is a strong perception among the public that recycling is a ‘good’ activity, the opposite is true of landfill. Three-quarters believe “burying waste in the ground (landfill)” has a negative effect on the environment9. Interestingly, this message has been successful without high levels of public awareness about landfill; only one in ten feels very well informed about this option, compared to over half who do not feel informed. Research in London reveals that at least half have no idea where their rubbish goes once it is collected10.
Participants in the qualitative research were similarly negative towards landfill, irrespective of awareness. Participants in the Greenwich group were particularly aware and made reference to the problems associated with landfill, including the health impacts of living near a landfill site (particularly on pregnant women), problems with methane/climate change, and problems with leachate:
You’ve got the soil, all the water running through it and straight into rivers and going into the sea and then you’ve got the fish being killed which gets into our food chain; I ain’t going to eat no more
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Even though not all groups demonstrated this level of awareness, a key factor behind the universal rejection of landfill was the image of things being buried in the ground indefinitely. In this respect, plastic seems to be a material which the public strongly associate as something ‘bad’, to the extent that to some it symbolises landfill. There are also negative feelings toward plastic in relation to its role in littering the local environment:
9

Waste management in Leicestershire, MORI, 2002
Waste management in Kensington & Chelsea, MORI, 1998

10

13

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Plastic is probably more important than all of them put together and you can’t get rid of it. Glass does eventually break down into the soil, paper rots, clothes rot.
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
It is just such a waste. It is going to be there forever, in a
100 years time you are going to dig up those plastic bags
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
It’s wherever I go. You always see them lying there or floating about or dumped packed full of whatever on a country road, they are just everywhere and I hate them
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry

Incineration
Incineration is an option which even fewer people feel informed about than landfill; two thirds do not feel informed11.
This was also evident in the group discussions, apart from Greenwich where residents have experience of living in proximity to an incinerator nearby.
Participants who feel informed express concerns about dioxins, smells, ash residue and emissions of carbon dioxide. Even among those who know nothing or little about them, there appears an intuitive tendency to be against them, irrespective of anyone telling them it was ‘safe’:
I don’t know anything about it but it sounds to me as though incineration would be more costly and damaging. I don’t know whether it is or not but that is my instinct
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
Every organisation can have their own expert and scientist to put across their own particular point of view
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
Nevertheless, the qualitative research suggests that there is no absolute rejection; rather a desire to ensure the role of incineration in waste management is kept to a relative minimum. There is indeed support for incineration under certain circumstances. For example, it is widely thought to be the best option for certain types of rubbish, such as clinical waste. It is also more acceptable in a recycling-led strategy where everything that can be recycled has been recycled, because at that point it is seen simply as the lesser of two evils in relation to landfill. It gains more support if participants feel that the material that is burnt is controlled (i.e. certain materials such as plastic are not incinerated.

11

Waste management in Leicestershire, MORI, 2002

14

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Furthermore, in keeping with MORI research conduced in Suffolk12, the operator of the incinerator appears significant; people want strict operating guidelines and are more likely to support and trust incineration in the hands of the local authority as opposed to a private contractor:
I think that certain things like hospital waste and things you need to get totally get rid of needs to be burnt
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
I think it’s a good idea but at the moment everything gets incinerated no matter what
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
One of the positive things is that it’s better than landfill
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
If we had efficient recycling then there’d be very few things to burn and the things that are left like plastic bags and food could be eradicated or used for something else
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
There is certainly an issue about how incineration is presented. Evidence suggests that support is higher when the energy recovery aspects are focused upon, since in this respect it can be seen to be based upon the same principles as recycling and is familiar to people in terms of their own attempts to save electricity. While not reaching the same positive rating as recycling and composting, the option of incineration termed as “producing energy from waste (incineration)”, is considered by three quarters of people in Leicestershire13 to have a beneficial environmental effect. This is evident among some focus group participants:
It would produce heat, so fair enough
Male, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle
That is not to say that public opinion about incineration, or any of the other options, is based solely in terms of environmental impact, but the fact that it can been seen positively when linked to a policy of energy recovery/conservation does have implications for communication messages concerning this method of waste disposal.

12
13

Attitudes to waste in Suffolk, MORI, 2002
Waste management in Leicestershire, MORI, 2002

15

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Waste minimisation
The issue of waste minimisation was explored qualitatively; participants are familiar with the idea but not the practice. Many are aware of examples from experiences in other countries and cannot understand why it is not replicated in the UK:
When I went to France years ago you could go there with your bottle and there was a vat and they just filled your bottle up
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
It is packaging as well you know and plastic carrier bags.
Why do they not have paper, I mean America has paper bags Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
In the majority of cases, participants feel that responsibility for waste minimisation rests with other stakeholders such as the Government (in its ability to set legislation) and manufacturers (who produce what was considered “excess packaging on all the products”). In some instances the passing of the blame elsewhere is not necessarily a rejection of individual responsibility but more symptomatic of a belief that they have no choice or means to make a difference in this respect:
The suppliers of the new product should have a responsibility to pick up the new product
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
Personally I don’t think you have got a choice because they all tend to be the same, they all tend to have the little plastic tray and then cellophane over that and then the box
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
I think they’re too big. They don’t listen to individuals and getting a group of people together is too much
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
They should reduce waste paper and packaging and things like that in the first place
Male, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle

16

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

There is also a feeling that waste minimisation is not a ‘normal’ shopping activity; if anything several participants feel there is a social ‘stigma’ attached to it:
I hate it when they do that. Even if you say they’ll look at you as though you’re mad to ask
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
It is funny how other people react to it because I was in
Tesco’s and the lady had started packing and what I normally pack into four she’d used about ten. I said I am not being awful but I’d rather you didn’t pack it and she looked really funny. I took it all back out and put them back and they looked at me as if I was mad
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
Interestingly, one of the negative side effects of providing facilities to recycle plastic is that it reduces the motivation to avoid excess packaging; participants no longer feel the need to actively minimise waste. In this respect the success of the
“recycling good; landfill bad” message is a potential barrier to developing a more detailed public understanding of the waste management ‘hierarchy’.
I used to buy cartons before I came here but now that I have the recycling I don’t mind buying the plastic ones now
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry

17

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Reported behaviour
Reported recycling rates
The level of self-reported recycling is consistently high in public attitude surveys; between 51-59% claim to recycle every two weeks or more or ‘all/most of the time’, rising to between 71-91% at least once in the past year.

Claimed recycling participation rates in public attitudes surveys – Every two weeks or “all or most of” given material
Survey

Date

Sample
Size

Claimed participation %

DETR

1997

na

51

Waste Watch/NOP

1997

400

59

Waste Watch/NOP

1998

1,200

57

MORI

1999

2,000

51

Oxford Brooks/Onyx

1999

1,000

53

Resources Recovery Forum/ BL/ MORI *

2001

1,000

53

Source: RRf/BL/MORI
*London only

A different approach is to ask residents to categorise themselves into ‘high’,
‘medium’ and ‘low’ recyclers14.
Claimed recycling participation rates
Base: 1,000 London residents

%

I recycle as much as I possibly can

33

I recycle a lot, but not everything that can be recycled

22

I do not recycle much

26

I do not recycle anything

19
Source: MORI

Such results are clearly positive and suggest that recycling is an activity which the majority of people are broadly aware of and at least occasionally participate in.
Nevertheless, this is clearly at odds with the actual recorded UK recycling rates.
14

Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001

18

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

One explanation is the phenomenon of ‘over-reporting’, whereby people feel compelled to over-estimate how much recycling they do; research indicates that this accounts for between 10-20% of responses15. Furthermore, the expectations of people are lower than waste managers; research in London suggests that recycling behaviour is defined principally in relation to paper and glass alone, which are recycled regularly by around half of people. In contrast, only one in five London survey households recycle anything else; significantly, this is evident even among those who consider themselves ‘high’ recyclers.
In this respect the issue is challenging the public’s accepted norms about what can be recycled, and more importantly, increasing their expectations of themselves in what constitutes a ‘high’ level of recycling.
Effectiveness of different household types
High
recyclers

Medium recyclers Households saying they ‘always’ recycle an item

%

%

Newspapers
Magazines
Glass bottles
Cereal boxes
Tin cans
Cardboard
Garden Rubbish
Soft drink cans
Plastic bottles

70
63
55
28
27
26
25
24
19

56
47
46
12
10
16
12
15
6

Source: Taken from Household Waste Behaviour in London (RRF/BL/MORI, 2001)

Recycling rates according to socio-demographic factors
Commitment to recycling varies significantly according to socio-demographic factors, at times predictably and across common divides. It should be noted that no single factor operates in isolation; combinations of these factors predispose people to certain levels of recycling. Examples include:
•

•

15

Age - residents aged 35-54 are more likely to recycle, in contrast to younger people aged 16-34 who are more likely to be apathetic towards recycling and more inclined to adopt a consumerist approach;
Affluence – affluent people recycle more, whereas deprived communities appear to consider recycling a peripheral issue in relation to the more immediate concerns facing them. Furthermore, residents on council estates are more likely to suffer disproportionately from a lack of facilities, social deprivation and fly-tipping/car abandonment;

Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001

19

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

•

Access to a garden strongly determines the level of home composting or the collection of organic waste;

•

Tenure and dwelling - home owners in a house are more likely to recycle than those renting in flats, particularly where those in flats are in highrise blocks where lack of space inside and outside the home becomes more of a pressing issue. The difference is also likely to be related to wealth (i.e. home owners are likely to be more affluent);

•

Environmental concern;

•

Car ownership, which partly reflects affluence and partly reflects access to recycling facilities where household collection is not available;

•

Urbanity; recycling appears lower in urban areas with higher density housing; •

Ethnicity – black and minority ethnic residents appear less likely to recycle, although this is partly a function of tenure;

•

Gender – in many cases women still appear to be more in control of domestic household responsibility and therefore are both more likely to recycle more and to throw materials away than men;

•

Length of residence – those with greater locational mobility are less likely to habitually recycle (which is also partly a function of age, since younger people are more likely to move across locations).

An uncomfortable issue for policy-makers identified by a number of studies is that a certain proportion of the population - as much as 10-15 percent – say they would not recycle under any circumstances. The research indicates that these people are from the full spectrum of socio-demographic groups, but the view is strongest among socially excluded households.

Green Consumerism: purchasing recycled products
While the need to recycle (if not the practice) is well established in the public consciousness, the same is not true of purchasing recycled products. Active purchases of these products remains relatively low, and research in London suggests that people whose shopping habits are influenced by environmental concern are in a minority; only 12 per cent of households ranked environmental considerations as a major influence on purchase selections16.
One of the main barriers to the development of an “ethical” or “green” consumer market is information and awareness. In this sense the need for better awareness about how recycled materials are used once they are collected becomes significant in order for people to have full information in making their purchases.
Only one in twenty (5%) feel very well informed about which products are made from recycled materials, compared to half who do not.

16

Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001

20

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Motivations
Environmental concerns
The public perceive a strong association between recycling and environmental activity; it is the predominant motivating influence, identified by 46% of people as the main reason why they recycle17. Other motivations clearly also have an environmental dimension, including ‘saves resources/trees’ (40%), ‘reduces the need for landfill’ (33%) and ‘need to look after the planet for children’ (13%).
People feel good that they are ‘doing their bit’ for the environment, and conversely, feel guilty if they do not recycle.
To certain sections of the public environmental responsibility is the backbone behind their motivation to recycle. However, this represents only a minority of the general public and so limits the effectiveness of environmental messages.
That is not to say that they are ineffective among others; rather it appears that to the majority of the public, environmental influences alone are insufficient to bring about habitual recycling; that is they are conditional upon other factors. For example, factors such as time and convenience are instrumental in either helping to ‘trigger’ regular recycling or, conversely, they ‘crowd-out’ or negate environmental sentiments.
There does appear to be more scope to further encourage the environmental motivations behind recycling; 58% claim they would recycle more if they had a greater understanding of the environmental benefits of recycling. If the messages that so effectively cemented the association between paper and cutting down trees could be transferred to other materials (where the link between source and product is much weaker, such as glass, steel and aluminium), there appears significant potential to widen the range of materials recycled.

The influence of children
Children have been found to pressurise their families into recycling, effectively becoming ‘advocates’ of environmental change in the household. While this is in general not a well studied area, research18 indicates that school and TV campaigns focused on recycling succeed in raising awareness and interest among children.
However, the change in attitudes among children as they get older is quite stark as social pressures and exposure to the ‘consumer culture’ begin to offset any initial environmental awareness19.

Recycling and packaging from the domestic waste stream, MORI, 1999
Environmental issues relating to steel – Children’s perspective, Business Research Unit, 1994
19 Recycling and packaging from the domestic waste stream, MORI, 1999
17
18

21

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

The qualitative research further develops the nature of the parent-child dynamic.
There is indeed a sense among some participants that their own behaviour is influenced by their children, or sometimes more accurately by what their children are doing at school:
The children at school have fruit for a snack and we have even got a composter that they trail out and put it in
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
There was an awareness campaign and it was really interesting. It was a packed lunch and where does everything go in the packed lunch
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
However, there is still a feeling that in many cases the influence is in the opposite direction from parent to child:
If mine drop something I tell them to pick it up and put it in a bin, but the amount of time you see it, I mean on the bus on the way home today, the amount of litter
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
They produce it!
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
I think they are aware but they still take their leads off their parents
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich

Individual responsibility – think global: act local
Environmental influences appear particularly effective among members of the public who have a “strong belief in personal responsibility and influence, as well as the power of self-determination”20. Furthermore, participants in the group discussions feel that recycling is one of the few activities where their efforts can actually make a difference:
In the past you might not have bothered but all of a sudden it is becoming more prevalent in the news and you feel as though you are doing your bit so it gives you a good feeling
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry

20

Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001

22

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Probably one of those things you could quite easily resolve yourself, to help to stop, say, global warming. Then you would feel as though you were doing something
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
However, a sense that one person can make a difference is not widespread among all sections of the public21; while three in five residents in the survey reject the suggestion that “there isn’t much ordinary people can do to help protect the environment”, a significant proportion (21%) do not believe in the “power of one”. This perspective is evident to an extent in the qualitative research:
Why should I bother, nobody else is
Male, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle everybody’s got to do a little bit for it to make a big difference Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Irrespective of whether residents feel they can or can’t make a difference, feedback on how their efforts are making a difference is identified as a significant enabler to encourage people to recycle more; 64% agree they would make more effort if they could be sure it was making a difference. This is again evident through the focus group discussions:
What could motivate me to do it more is to see that as a nation as a whole we are doing it
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich

Economic prudence
One motivation for recycling is an attitude of prudence based on a desire to simply save money or just not to waste anything. This was particularly evident among older participants who spoke of being told ‘not to throw things away’ as children, when there was ‘hardly any waste’. Such sentiments were also supported by younger participants, although they felt that this was increasingly at odds with the ideals of the ‘throwaway’ modern consumer society.
You know when you get your shopping and your carrier bag, I use my carrier bags in my bins instead of buying bin liners. Therefore you are saving money by doing that
Female, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle

21

Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001

23

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Local recycling service provision
Kerbside collection schemes
Three-quarters (72%) say they would recycle more if they had better facilities22. In this respect, there appears strong potential for kerbside collection in increasing recycling rates. The qualitative research reveals the fact that convenience is often the essential pre-requisite to recycling: personally I am very lazy and I think a lot of people are so to have these facilities to open up your back door with three bins, you would do it and there wouldn’t be any problem
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
Furthermore, a strong correlation has been found between those who claim to recycle frequently and those who are served by a kerbside collection service for recyclables23. In London, nearly three-quarters of kerbside households claim to be high/medium recyclers and 59% claim to have increased the amount of household rubbish they recycle in the last few years.
Effectiveness of different household types
Kerbside

No kerbside

Households saying they ‘always’ recycle an item

%

%

Newspapers
Glass bottles
Cereal boxes
Tin cans
Cardboard
Garden Rubbish
Plastic bottles

60
46
18
20
19
19
11

25
19
6
4
7
8
5

Source: Taken from Household Waste Behaviour in London (RRF/BL/MORI, 2001)

The qualitative research suggests that kerbside collection schemes can also encourage a wider environmental ethic. This was evident in Daventry, where participants considered their local recycling service to be very good. Whereas they initially recycled simply through the availability of the service (rather than any strong ‘green’ motivations), the very act of participation itself led to a greater awareness of their impact on the environment. In this sense the service is not simply responding to demand but instead catalysing it:

22
23

Recycling and packaging from the domestic waste stream, MORI, 1999
Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001

24

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

I wasn’t aware until I moved here, but was very pleased when I did realise how good their recycling policy is, which I thought was, well, quite enlightening for me
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
I have got family up north and down south and nobody I knows gets their recycling collected like we do and when I have spoken to members of my family they can’t imagine it
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry

Recycling sites
Recycling sites suffer in comparison to kerbside collection schemes because of the effort needed to travel to them, the fact that driving to them can reduce the environmental benefit, and that the sites themselves are considered to detract from the ‘liveability’/visual appearance of the local street environment:
I am having to drive, I am damaging the environment to help the environment, it just seems really stupid
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
I have to physically go there two miles down the road and nine times out of ten it is chocker block so you leave it on the floor and it just feels like ‘why am I doing this?’
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich

The range of materials that can be recycled
Clearly for the majority of the public, the issue is simply one of encouraging them to recycle and then increasing the regularity with which they recycle. However, for those who conscientiously recycle and have well-established recycling routines, a significant barrier is the range of material they can recycle. One third of residents in London ‘strongly agree’ that the Council doesn’t collect all the things they want to recycle24. Similarly, this was found among some participants in the focus group discussions:
I never recycle plastic bottles because there is nowhere to go, you can’t get rid of plastic no matter what you do
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Active recyclers can have a role in beginning to push the expectations for recycling and begin to ‘normalise’ new recycling habits which others can then follow in the future.

24

Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001

25

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Awareness and information
Basic operational information – is there a scheme, where is the scheme, how does it work
One of the most elementary barriers to recycling is simply a lack of awareness of the existence of a local recycling service. MORI surveys for several local authorities indicate that only around half of those households with a kerbside collection scheme were aware that this was available to them (the vast majority of which claimed they would use one if it was available). Follow-up surveys in locations with kerbside schemes such as Kensington & Chelsea, Leicester and
Hertfordshire have shown low levels of awareness about such provision;
Secondly, a lack of understanding of the basic practicalities of recycling should not be underestimated. For example, as many as one in three do not feel informed about which materials can and can’t be recycled, while 38% are not aware of where materials can be recycled locally25. Significantly, this rises among ‘low’ and
‘medium’ recyclers, suggesting that this issue is particularly important among those who do not recycle much at present. The qualitative research reveals particular confusion over the composting of organic waste, both in terms of council-subsidised bins and also which types of material could be included.
How does it work?
I was going to ask somebody if they knew what the little brown one was because I don’t know what’s that for
It’s for in the kitchen and you can put in, like, potato peelings Is that what it’s for?
Male and females, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
I would do it if they gave me the bin and everything
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Furthermore, the diversity of schemes across different authorities or even within areas can be confusing; providing multiple ways in order to maximise choice can actually deter participation. In this respect, research in London26 supports a single,
London-wide message on recycling, with perhaps the same receptacles for the same materials and the same colour schemes across each of the boroughs.

25
26

Recycling and packaging from the domestic waste stream, MORI, 1999
Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001

26

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Recycling ‘myths’
A lack of understanding can lead to the perpetuation of “recycling myths”.
Research in London27 reveals that a significant perceptual barrier to around one in three is the suggestion that the Council does not actually recycle all the materials collected. Among participants in the qualitative research the feeling that recycling is a cheaper option than landfill is widespread:
As a local authority they can actually recoup money through recycling if they choose to, so it is not best management of our money
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
It they recycle it should make it cheaper, that’s the idea
Male, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle

Understanding the life cycle of products
Consecutive surveys28,29,30,31 have found that a large information gap exists around what happens to waste and recyclable materials once they have been collected; more than two thirds do not feel informed in this respect. Clearly it is not pragmatic to try and inform the public on the specific technicalities of the process, but increasing awareness is important to avoid a situation, as evident among some participants in the focus groups, where waste is considered “out of sight, out of mind”:
You just automatically tend to literally put it in the bin, and when it is in the bin it is sort of gone
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
Awareness of where the rubbish goes is also important in feeding into three other issues in particular: allowing people to understand how their individual actions are making a difference through a realisation of the collective process; tackling
‘recycling myths’ that recycling all ends up in landfill anyway, and encouraging people to make ‘green’ consumer choices in favour of recycled products:
The evidence from opinion research also suggests that as well as understanding what happens to the materials after they have been collected, there are also potential benefits to increasing awareness about the source of raw materials. As already discussed, the association between recycling paper and cutting down trees is a powerful motivation for recycling.

Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001
Recycling and packaging from the domestic waste stream, MORI, 1999
29 Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001
30 Waste management in Leicestershire, MORI, 2002
31 Attitudes to waste in Suffolk, MORI, 2002
27
28

27

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Advertising
Given the fact that recycling is not thought about frequently enough to establish habitual patterns of behaviour, the qualitative research supports the need for more advertising about recycling to ‘jog’ people into thinking about it:
There isn’t enough advertising about recycling. They don’t advertise where they are, you just sort of have to find them
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
I think there is an onus on the Government to promote it as you don’t really hear much
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
I think if people understood the implications of not recycling and it was put in black and white so you could read the effects it would motivate people into doing it
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
One important finding with implications for the provision of information is that many people do not actually think about recycling unless it is brought to their attention and very few actively seek out information on recycling services; the fact that it exists is insufficient. This is particularly important for more mobile sections of society (for example, younger people renting), and for local authorities with a more transient population.
Recycling banks not only play a direct role in providing a place to deposit recyclable materials, but also act as visual ‘reminders’ to people passing by.
Therefore, issues of cleanliness, frequency, maintenance and sign posting become important in more than just directly accessing the service. Issues of branding also become significant; there is a need to investigate the potential impact on the public of a visually attractive, clear and eye-catching brand identity that is linked to the wider street environment:
Red bins for green waste which is ironic
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Instead of having gaudy colours, I think they could all be variants on the same colour with a circle of what they want in them and like a subtle green
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Another suggestion is better and bigger symbols on packaging; 73% say this is likely to encourage them to recycle more32. This would have again have benefits of acting as a visual reminder that continually reminds people of the need to recycle. It may also serve to increase trust in producers, who are often felt to intentionally keep symbols small in order to mislead customers.
32

Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001

28

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Education
Participants in the focus groups feel there is a strong role for schools to educate children about recycling and establish good habits from an early age. Experience of this varies; some participants think their child’s school is very good and does have recycling schemes, while others think that this is not taught enough in the education system:
You’ve got to get to people young and make it part of people’s psyche. It’s no use asking people of 18 to do it, it’s got to be second nature
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
In school, I don’t know what the education is like in schools on the environment. It is just English, Maths and
Biology and that is it. Nobody bothers at school
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry

29

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Household waste management
Household dynamics
The presence of somebody in the household acting as a recycling ‘advocate’ who encourages, or rather pesters, others about the need to recycle is an effective means of regularly bringing the issue to people’s attention. As discussed, young children can be powerful agents of change within the home. Even though many women now work outside the home, they still appear to set the rules for domestic management, including whether and how recycling is done33. Because women continue to do most of the household chores they are, by default, the ones who throw most away.

Time constraints
A lack of time is frequently identified throughout the research as a barrier to recycling34. In London, 37% said they were too busy to visit recycling banks and a similar number disagreed that recycling fits in easily with their everyday routine. In the absence of a strong recycling “culture” in the UK, research suggests that convenience is the key driver of recycling behaviour, having the power to activate, or conversely disengage, underlying environmental motivations. Against a backdrop of busy lives, recycling is seen to need to fit in more around people’s lives rather than people having to fit their lives around it.
The Hadley Centre have developed a concept of people becoming increasingly
“Time-poor” outside of work. They contend that fitting a new activity into nonwork time will depend on whether it is considered a ‘chore’ or a ‘pleasure’.
People invest time in pleasures, once they have completed their chores with the least possible expenditure of time and in a ‘hierarchy’ of what needs to be done. In the context of waste disposal, throwing rubbish into one bin is easier and less time consuming than separating recyclables. Organisation appears to become one of the key factors in respect of minimising this additional ‘chore’ factor associated with recycling, such as recycling bins for each type of material. There is also potential to link recycling with ‘pleasurable’ activities, for example in terms of the link between composting and gardening.
The negative impact of having to transport materials to a recycling site is clear from a MORI survey in Leicestershire35; where the proportion of people saying they are certain to collect dry recyclables drops from 71% if it is collected from the home to 23% if they needed to take it to a recycling bank. Similarly, in terms of recycling sites, 71% say they would recycle if they were closer to their home.
This re-iterates that while transport may be a common barrier to all, only those people who are enthusiastic or passionate enough about environmental issues are likely to take the effort to overcome the barrier.
Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001
What people think about waste, NOP/Waste Watch, 1998
35 Waste management in Leicestershire, MORI, 2002
33
34

30

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Psychology of waste
Households are generally more concerned about untidiness (“mess”) than waste
(“rubbish”). Items are typically thrown away unconsciously and as quickly as possible as part of keeping the home clean, tidy and free from “smells”. As the
London research notes36, even self-declared committed recyclers may be put off by the clutter and untidiness caused around the home by storing recyclables.
Further work in the qualitative research highlights the significance of how recyclable materials are stored in the house, and demonstrates that the provision of suitable containers which can withstand poor weather, decomposition and
“smells” are critical prerequisites to participation:
So it is that sort of thing of where to put it in the interim before you can then take the time to remember to go to the bottle bank
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
Like you say you are not going to have it stacked up in your kitchen are you
Female, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle
You need somewhere as source in your home where you can separate it at least into three types
Male, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle
This problem is particularly acute for organic kitchen and garden waste (only half of residents say they would be willing to recycle organic waste, compared to 90% willing to recycle paper). These are items that are disposed of as they arise, and reflecting this, 74% say that any collection would need to be on a weekly basis, in contrast to other materials (paper, glass) where accumulation over a longer period of time is more acceptable37.

Storage space
In many cases people seem to prefer the idea of separating different types of material for recycling, as part of what seems to be an intuitive preference to ensure that recycling is carried out ‘properly’. However, this is tempered by the fact that one third of people say storage space for waste is a major problem for them inside the home; while one in five think it is a major problem outside the home. Once again this has implications for how many waste containers people say they would prefer to have for recycling; whereas almost half would actually prefer more than two outside the home, most people would prefer no more than one additional container inside the home.

36
37

Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001
Waste management in Leicestershire, MORI, 2002

31

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Responsibility for waste
The research studies are consistent in showing that the public do not always think that recycling is their problem. At one end of the spectrum, some research38 suggests that it is easy for the public “to absolve themselves of any real responsibility and placate their conscience by recycling a few of their wine bottles or Sunday newspapers”.
However, this is not entirely supported by other studies. In London, only 18% thought it was not their responsibility to recycle, compared to 61% who did39.
Rather, the issue appears to be that people realise the limitations of their action alone and demand demonstrable actions by other key players; whether it be a collective public response, supermarkets encouraging environmentally-friendly packaging, or Government legislation and guidelines. The qualitative research suggests that as other stakeholders become more active locally (for example the local council’s comprehensive kerbside scheme in Daventry), so participants are more likely to accept that recycling is also their responsibility. Where participants do not perceive other parties to be active, they tend to place the blame elsewhere.

Leading by example
There appears a strong case for the various stakeholders involved in the management of waste to lead by example. People expect that retailers and manufacturers should take the lead on cutting the amount of waste they produce; in London 69% agree that it is the supermarkets/shops responsibility to introduce more environmentally friendly packaging. There is also a clear (and as yet unfulfilled) role for Government to better promote recycling; 45% believe the
Government should do more to promote recycling, compared to only 8% who believe they already do so sufficiently40. Participants in the qualitative research are quite negative:
On a personal level I don’t think they give a damn.
Running around in Jaguars. If they put themselves forward they should be doing it better. Set an example
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
It is possible to construct a graph of stakeholders according to how much people think they are currently doing to promote recycling against how much people think they should be doing. Such an analysis reveals that the public believe that local councils should be responsible for promoting recycling and actually are currently very active in doing so. In contrast, there is a strong feeling that the UK
Government, companies who make packaging and companies who use packaging should be doing much more than they currently are:
Consumer attitudes to Packaging, Pegram Walters Associates, 1993
Household Waste in London, Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, 2001
40 Recycling and packaging from the domestic waste stream, MORI, 1999
38
39

32

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Responsibility for Promoting Recycling
Who is doing a lot vs Who should be doing a lot
Q69 vs Q70
% Are doing a lot
50

Environmental groups Local councils

40

Supermarkets
30

Companies who supply raw materials for packaging

20

Companies who make products using packaging

British Government

10

EC

Companies who make packaging

Other shops

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% Should be doing a lot
Base: 2,005 GB adults 15+

During the focus groups the influence of local businesses was discussed at length.
There is a feeling that local businesses have a strong role to play as employers, partly because they produce so much waste and partly because they could have establish good habits among employees that can then be transferred to the household. Few participants feel their company does much to recycle, although there are examples of particular successes and a demand to extend household collection schemes to local businesses:
There needs to be a policy throughout the company, they are the biggest wasters. You should see the amount of paper we get through, it’s unbelievable
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
We have got a very good policy where I work to the extent that we have an environmental officer and have an environmentally green garden where you go and sit and it’s really quite extensive. It’s made people that I know more aware because they’ll have a chat with her at coffee time
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
From a commercial point of view I would like to see recycling taken from the coffee shop, we take it home and our red and blue boxes are overflowing. If something could be arranged that would be great
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry

33

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

Charging for waste
The qualitative research confirms that the idea of charging people for the waste they produce is undoubtedly a contentious issue.
Initial reactions to the idea are unanimously negative; without any details of possible charging schemes, participants instinctively are against the concept in principle because of the association with powerful cultural reference points around ‘paying extra’, ‘paying twice’ and ‘stealth’ taxation:
You are already paying your rates to have your bins collected Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Why should you have to pay more?
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
However, opposition to the principle of charging is not absolute; participants appear more accepting under certain theoretical circumstances and reassurances that, taken together, suggest there are ‘conditions of acceptance’, including:
1. Facilities before charges. There is universal agreement that any charge would be unfair if people didn’t first have the chance to recycle voluntarily.
In this respect participants want better facilities ahead of any introduction of charging. If you are going to be charged then everything needs to be in place Female, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle
Give people the opportunity of doing it with the facilities there and I think a lot of people would do. Then if it is not having the impact then the penalty could come down to individuals Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
If they can educate and then have the facilities to do it then they wouldn’t have to charge anybody to do it
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Providing the infrastructure was definitely there. Because the reason I use my car is that the buses are crap, they really are
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich

34

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

2. Charging according to use. Participants are generally accepting of any charge which is targeted specifically at those who don’t recycle, and in turn supports those who do. There is support for refunds for those who take part in socially beneficial activities (such as recycling) and penalties for activities which are not socially desirable (in this case throwing all rubbish away without recycling). In this way there is implicit support for the ‘Polluter Pays
Principle’, which on further discussion is considered a fair basis for taxation that has a clear social purpose rather than simply generating revenue for the
Government:
It should be directly attributable to what you use
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
If it was a case of reducing your rates then I think that is quite fair because you are paying for what is going rather than paying regardless
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
[there should be] a lower charge for people who aren’t creating as much rubbish
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
If you could educate people on that principle [polluter pays principle] you’d be winning
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
3. Revenue from the charge should be accountable, spent openly, and related to environmental schemes and in the local community. There is a strong feeling among some respondents that any revenue generated from charging should be spent within the local community and on related schemes (either recycling itself, or on other local facilities). Some participants feel that schemes to charge people for carrier bags at supermarkets could be acceptable if they are clearly linked to environmental benefit rather than just a revenue-raising measure:
If the money went into keeping our children off the streets, so they weren’t damaging and wrecking things.
Male, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle
I wouldn’t mind paying 2% tax on my food knowing they are going to come along and pick it up and dispose of it properly Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
I think you’d get initial resistance but once people are educated and it’s clearly linked to the environment you would feel like you are doing your bit again
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry
35

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

4. Responsibility is not solely placed on individuals. In accordance with a belief that responsibility for recycling goes beyond the public alone, it is clear that participants are more accepting of charging if other groups were also subject to financial obligations to reduce their part in the waste stream. Most notably, it is felt that local councils should have funding from Government reduced if they do not meet their targets. Applying the same logic, some participants feel it was fair for the European Union to tie its funding to the
UK upon the ability of the UK Government to meet its targets. There is also demand for tighter legislation and penalties, particularly for packaging companies and manufacturers.
I think the onus has been put on the wrong people in that why should we be penalised as tax payers for lack of recycling when some local authorities are clearly better than others so there should be some sort of penalty for them first
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
They [the Government] give money to the local council. If you don’t get your recycling up then you will lose that money
Female, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle
Such findings demonstrate that participants do not necessarily reject outright any system of charging; indeed there is conditional support under certain circumstances. Therefore, the issue of charging is more complex than any simple rejection of taxes per se, and the theoretical conditions of acceptance outlined here warrant further consideration and research among the wider public.
However, that is not to say that the conditions outlined here are a panacea for public support. It is based only upon the principles of the conditions applied, and when participants discuss the actual practicalities of implementation, opposition once again increases. In particular, several issues concern participants, including the cost of administering the charge, the impact on families, the fact that some people would simply ignore it without recourse (and by extension therefore making it unfair on those who did pay), and closely linked to this the chance it could lead to more fly-tipping and hence reduce the ‘liveability’ of the local area:
People would put stuff in green bags that weren’t recyclable to get away from the charge because how would you check that? Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
I think it would cause more litter because people wouldn’t pay it and then they would just take it down to the local alley and dump it
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Daventry

36

Public Attitudes Towards Recycling and Waste Management

It just wouldn’t work, because there are people who would do it and people who wouldn’t
Male, 35-50, social class C2DE, Pendle
I think if you start charging people for having more than one bag you will start penalising certain people like families
Female, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Furthermore, an added complexity to the issue of charging appears to be who is behind the charge; participants demonstrate a lack of trust in the Government, based upon previous experiences such as the taxation of transport. In this respect there is a considerable amount of cultural ‘baggage’ around charging, with a strong and negative association with ‘stealth’ taxes and a lack of transparency:
The biggest problem I can see is that it would start off at a basic value and then it would just rocket the same that they have done with petrol
Male, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
Yes in principle it is alright but they will just increase it
Female, 30-45, social class C1C2, Kettering
It will go the same way as all the charges, instead of going where it is supposed to help it will go to the Treasury and everywhere apart from where it is supposed to go. Look at car tax – they do nothing to relieve the congestion in
London and yet we’re paying billions of pounds in taxes every year on petrol and road tax
Male, 25-40, social class ABC1, Greenwich
Finally, it is clear that participants are uneasy about any separate system of charging outside of the current Council Tax rates. Recent research in London suggests “people have no cultural reference point for thinking about being charged for their own rubbish”. However, it is not entirely clear whether this represents active resistance or simply a lack of information at this point; some in the group welcome the decoupling of waste payments from the general rates so that the charge is based only on use, while others appear resistant to the charge only because they could not recognise this would also mean a reduction in their general Council Tax. The perception that any new charging system represents an additional charge is a strong perceptual barrier that cannot be over-emphasised.

37

Appendices
Topic guide
Recruitment questionnaire
Bibliography
Statistical significance

Topic Guide
Section
1. Introduction

Time
5

Broad aims of the research – talk about the environment (do not mention waste at this point). Will tell them at the end who the client is
Introduce MORI and self. Explain confidentiality;
Permission to record discussion;
Explain the need for participants to answer as honestly as possible and not how they think they should answer – stress that there are no right or wrong answers;
Ground rules – one person talks at once; no answer is right or wrong – healthy debate not argument; everybody should talk.
Everyone to introduce themselves & to mention some attributes of someone they would say is a ‘green’ person. Could be anything from appearance, behaviour, motivations, beliefs etc (QUICK MINDMAP AROUND
STICKMAN)
2. Background – Attitudes to the Environment
Mind Map
Attitudes to the Environment – What are the important issues
a) GLOBALLY
b) LOCALLY
- Probe for rubbish as an important local issue/how it compares to others
- what words/materials are associated with rubbish/waste
Rubbish/Waste
Do you ever think about what happens to your rubbish after it is taken away from your house?
Are you concerned about it goes? Why/why not?
Where does rubbish go? DO NOT PROMPT
BUT THEN PROBE FOR ROUGH PROPORTIONS TO EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING: (use percentages or dustbin analogy)
- Recycling/composting?
- Burying waste in the ground (landfill)?
- Energy recovery from incineration?
How does UK compare with rest of Europe? Does this matter? Why/why not?
PROBE.

10

3. Waste management options

15

Now I want to move on to how we can manage all the household waste we produce in the future. Recycling is just one of a number of ways we could deal all the rubbish we churn out. I now want to explore different solutions to the problem, and see which make most sense to you.
I’m going to present you with some of the options which countries like Britain could use to deal with our waste:
REFER TO FLIPCHART: STICKY LABELS OR ARGUMENTS FOR AND
AGAINST (Positive args/negative args):
- Waste minimisation;
- Home composting
- Open-air composting on a large scale
- Burying rubbish in the ground (landfill)
- Recycling
- Energy recovery by burning waste (incineration)
FOR EACH OPTION:
How positive or negative are you towards this options for dealing with waste?
Why?
How much would you say you know about it?
What concerns, if any, do you have about waste being disposed in this way?
Would you be prepared to have a facility in your area? What would be the problems? What would be the benefits? Under what circumstances would you accept this?
PROBE AROUND THE ISSUE OF ‘NIMBYism’. If not your area, then where? What will the people who live there say? Who should make the final decision? Which option do you prefer? Why?

4. Recycling & waste: Personal motivations & behaviour

OK we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to you right the way down from the global stuff to the more local and personal issues. I’m interested to know now how you go about managing the rubbish your household produces, and in particular the extent to which you recycle as well as how you feel about it
How much, if at all, do you recycle at the moment? KEEP QUITE BRIEF
Dustbin exercise: identifying what gets recycled & why/how
To get a feel for the kinds of things that you do or don’t recycle, I want you to take 5 or 6 of these cards, and just quickly for each of you to jot down
a) one or two things that you never recycle
b) one or two things that you sometimes recycle
c) one or two things that you always recycle

15

When you’ve done that, just drop them onto the bins/piles I’m going to put out. I’ll give you a couple of minutes.
USE DUSTBIN PILE MATERIAL AS STIMULI/TALKING POINTS
FOR EACH WORTH DISCUSSING:
How much would you say you recycle this? PROBE: How often do you recycle? How do you recycle? PROMPT WITH: recycling banks? Kerbside collection?
Composting? Charities?
Do you ever recycle at work? What do you recycle? Is there a policy for recycling at work? Could you recycle more at work? PROBE FOR ANY LINK
BETWEEN RECYCLING AT HOME AND AT WORK.
Who in your household is responsible for taking the bins out?
Is anyone responsible for recycling?
Motivations
Thinking about all these things we’ve talked about regarding recycling, tell me about why you recycle? What else?
What do you like about recycling? What do you dislike?
IF NOT MENTIONED, PROBE WITH: To what extent do the following influence you to recycle?
Environmental concerns
Children
Economic reasons
Moral (for children/future generations)
Social (community spirit)
Efficiency (avoids wastage)
Tidy home
5. Barriers to recycling
We’ve talked about what you’re currently doing to recycle some of the waste your house produces.
Do think you would realistically do more?
Is anything getting in the way of you recycling more of your household waste?
Mind map of barriers
PROBES: What do you mean by that?
Time pressures?
Someone else in household throws item away?
Not clear what can and can’t be recycled?
Recycling facilities inconvenient?
Lack storage space?
Keeping materials is dirty/untidy?
Doesn’t make a difference on my own?
Can’t be bothered?
Poor recycling services locally?
PROBE FOR ATTITUDES/BELIEFS:
Recycling can be environmentally damaging

10

I would like to know more about what happens to materials once they are collected
The council does not recycle everything that is put out for recycling
I haven’t got enough storage space to keep recycled materials
Keeping things for recycling clutters up the house and makes it look untidy
Recycling is sometimes too much extra effort
Recycling takes longer than throwing things away
I haven’t got any more time in the day to recycle
Recycling is now part of my day-to-day routine keeping the home tidy/is normal
Is it realistically likely that you would do more if some/all of these things changed? 6. Responsibility for rubbish
Who is responsible for waste? Which organisations? Anyone else? GET THEM
TO IDENTIFY SEVERAL DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS – PROMPT
IF NOT MENTIONED WITH:
Government
Local council
Supermarkets
Companies which make products/packaging
Environmental groups
General public
TASK – split into two groups. Using pre-drawn mind-map flip chart sheets
(showing the different stakeholders with responsibility for cutting down rubbish), get them (a) to circle in red, yellow, or green how well they think each is doing (green = good etc.). Then, (b) for each get them to make 2/3 suggestions about what each should do – e.g. government – charge people, raise awareness etc;
When finished go through each comparing the two different groups and asking why they thought that, picking up two in particular:
1. individuals - additionally prompt with following questions:
Do you think there is anything you could do to cut down on the waste your household produces? PROBE FOR SPONTANEOUS IDEAS.
Would you realistically be willing/able to put this into practice?
What is preventing you from doing this?
Here are some ideas for how we can personally reduce the amount of waste we produce Explore a selection of:
Buy washable nappies rather than disposable nappies
Avoid disposable products (plates, cups, knives and forks)
Buy ‘bags for life’ from supermarkets
Give items to charities (e.g. clothes, books)
Repair items (e.g. re-sole shoes, suits to a tailor, electrical appliances etc.)
Decline extra bags in supermarkets (e.g. around fruit, vegetables, or around meat)
Reverse-vend schemes (e.g. taking bottles back to the shops)
FOR SPONT. & PROMPTED IDEAS (WHERE APPROPRIATE), PROBE:
Had you heard of this product/action?
Do you buy them/do this?

30

- IF YES How often? Why? PROBE FOR: intentional environmental motivation? reduce waste? What do you think of them?
- IF NO do you think it would do any good buying them/doing this?
Would you consider buying them/doing this? Why/why not?
2. Public bodies (e.g. local council)
Explore a selection of options, including
Local Kerbside collection service
Bigger, clearer symbols on packaging
More recycling sites in convenient locations
Better maintained recycling sites
Better information (on recycling sites, to homes, how to recycle, what to recycle)
Charge people according to how much non-recyclable rubbish they produce (cheaper for people who recycle)? – investigate if they would accept more (a) if the money was spent on improving recycling and not just a general charge; (b) if people who recycle more save money.
7. Conclusion
Thinking about the discussion we have had today, what ONE thing would you suggest to reduce the amount of waste sent to be buried in the ground/landfill?
Reveal client (UK Government – prior to waste strategy) – any reactions/messages to take back?
Thanks and end discussion

5

Recruitment Questionnaire
WASTE MANAGEMENT RECRUITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Name/Initial/Title: Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss

Address:

Telephone no. (WRITE IN)

Full Postcode

Good morning/afternoon. My name is ............ from MORI, the independent research agency.
We’re inviting a group of people together to discuss local issues and the environment. We were wondering whether you could help us. Can I just ask?
Q1.

SHOWCARD A Do you or any members of your immediate family work in any of the following professions/industries/organisations? READ OUT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

Q2.

Advertising
Market Research
Public relations
Waste disposal
Local Council
Journalism/the media
No none of these

CLOSE

CONTINUE

Have you participated in a focus group discussion for a market research company in the last 12 months
Yes
No

Q3.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

1
2

CLOSE
CONTINUE

Do you live in the borough of [add location]?
Yes
No

1
2

CONTINUE
CLOSE

Q4.

SHOWCARD B How often, if at all, would you say you recycle? For example, composting organic waste, taking bottles to a bottle bank, newspapers/cardboard/fabric to a recycling site or putting recyclable household waste out separately for collection SINGLE CODE ONLY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

Q5.

B
C

GO TO Q5
CODE AS MEDIUM RECYLER
CONTINUE
CODE AS LOW RECYCLER
CLOSE
CLOSE

I recycle everything that can be recycled I recycle a lot but not everything that can be recycled
I recycle some things that can be recycled 1

CODE AS HIGH RECYCLER
AND CLOSE

2

CODE AS MEDIUM RECYLER
CONTINUE

3

SHOWCARD C What age were you on your last birthday? Please just read out the letter that applies. SINGLE CODE ONLY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

Q7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

And which one of the following statements do you feel apply to you the most?
A

Q6

Every week
Once every two or three weeks
Once every one to two months
Once every three to four months
Less than twice a year
Never
Don’t know

18 – 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 40
41 - 45
46 - 50
Over 50

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CLOSE
CONTINUE AND
RECRUIT TO QUOTA
CLOSE

Occupation of Chief Income Earner
Position/rank/grade
Industry/type of co.
Quals/degrees.apprents
No of staff responsible for
PROBE FULLY FOR PENSION
Class of CIE
A
B
C1
C2
D
E

1
2
3
4
5
6

RECRUIT TO QUOTA

Q8

SHOWCARD D Which of these describes your home? SINGLE CODE ONLY
A
B
C
D
E
F

Q9

A house
A bungalow
A flat
A maisonette
A room/rooms/bedsit
Other (PLEASE CODE ‘6’ AND
WRITE IN)

1
2
3

RECRUIT TO QUOTA

Do you have any children aged 5-16 living with you?
Yes
No

Q11

RECRUIT TO QUOTA

And can I check do you have a garden? ASK IF YES And is this private or communal?
Yes:
Private
Communal
No

Q10

1
2
3
4
5
6

Gender of respondent
Male
Female

1
2

RECRUIT TO QUOTA

1
2

RECRUIT TO QUOTA

Q12

SHOWCARD E To which of these groups do you consider you belong to? SINGLE
CODE ONLY
Black or Black British:
African
Caribbean
Any other black background (WRITE IN
AND CODE ‘3’)

1
2
3

Asian or Asian British
D Bangladeshi
E Indian
F Pakistani
G Any other Asian background (WRITE IN
AND CODE ‘7’)

4
5
6
7

White:
H British
I Irish
J Any other white background (WRITE IN
AND CODE 0’)

8
9
0

Mixed:
White and Black Caribbean
White and Black African
White and Asian
Any other mixed background (WRITE IN
AND CODE ‘2’)

X
Y
1
2

Chinese or other Ethnic group:
O Chinese
P Any other background (WRITE IN AND
CODE ‘4’)

3
4

A
B
C

K
L
M
N

RECRUIT TO QUOTA

Thank you. We are holding a group discussion related to recycling and would like to invite you to attend. If you attend, we will provide refreshment and offer £25 as a ‘thank you’. I would just like to confirm whether you will be able to attend the discussion:
Check
for availability Greenwich, 17/09,
25-40, ABC1
1
1
2

Group
Yes
No

Kettering, 18/09,
30-45, C1C2
2
1
2

Pendle, 19/09, 35-50,
C2DE
3
1
2

Daventry, 23/09, 3045, C1C2
4
1
2

1
1
2

2
1
2

3
1
2

4
1
2

Check for attendance
Group
Yes
No

PLEASE BE SURE TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS AND SEND FULL
DETAILS BACK TO THE MORI OFFICE. THE MODERATOR WILL NOT BRING EXPENSES
UNLESS WE HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
Q13

Can I just check, will you personally be responsible for paying childcare to enable you to attend the group? And if so, approximately how much will it cost? SINGLE CODE ONLY
Yes (PLEASE CODE ‘1’ AND
WRITE IN AMOUNT)

1

PLEASE NOTE WILL ONLY PAY IF
COSTS AGREED NOW

£_ _:_ _
No
Q14

2

Can I just check, will you have to pay any travel costs to enable you to attend the group?
And if so, approximately how much will it cost? SINGLE CODE ONLY
Yes (PLEASE CODE ‘1’ AND
WRITE IN AMOUNT)

1

PLEASE NOTE WILL ONLY PAY
COSTS IF AGREED NOW

£_ _:_ _
No

2

THANK RESPONDENT AND GIVE INVITATION CARD, EXPLAINING TIME, DATE,
LOCATION AND BENEFITS* AT APPROPRIATE POINT IN THE CONVERSATION
* Light refreshments, a £25 ‘thank you’ fee and, if appropriate, a taxi to/from venue and childcare costs Telephone check/confirmation the day before? MANDATORY
Yes
No

1
2

I confirm that I have carried out this interview face-to-face with the above name person and that
I asked all the questions and recorded the answers in conformance with the survey specifications and within the MRS Code of Conduct.
Signature:
Interviewer Name (CAPS):
Date Recruited:
Interviewer Number:
/

THIS FORM IS THE PROPERTY OF MARKET & OPINION RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
(MORI) LTD
95 SOUTHWARK STREET, LONDON SE1 0HX

Bibliography
•

Packaging Consumer Awareness and Education Steering Group/MORI, ‘Recycling
Used Packaging from the Domestic Waste Stream’, 1999. A literature review of previous research and original research – quantitative national survey of 2,000 adults aged
15+, face-to-face and in-home; alongside eight qualitative focus groups;

•

Resource Recovery Forum/Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, ‘Household Waste Behaviour in
London’, 2001. Face-to-face, in-home quantitative survey of 1,000 London residents aged 16+, alongside six focus groups;

•

MORI, Waste in Suffolk (2002): telephone survey through the local Citizens’ Panel, followed by a workshop of 30 residents. A deliberative approach was used with residents acting as a jury, considering evidence presented to them throughout the day; •

MORI, Hertfordshire waste strategy/WasteAware campaign (2000-02): consultation on both the physical aspects of services (and potential changes/improvements to services), as well as evaluation of the WasteAware communications element of the strategy. A range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used to ensure that the consultation process has allowed statistical robustness, as well as being as inclusive as possible;

•

MORI, Leicestershire Waste Management Survey (2002): a postal survey with 1,971 residents responding;

•

MORI/DETR, ‘Public Attitudes Towards the Environment’, 1997: quantitative survey of
2,000 adults, aged 18+ in England and Wales, conducted face-to-face, in-home.
This regular project (previously conducted in 1993 and 1989) examines a broad range of actions that people may take to protect the environment, and their general attitudes; •

MORI, ‘Business & the Environment’, 1999: quantitative survey of 2,000 adults, aged
15+ throughout Great Britain, conducted face-to-face, in-home. Also a regular survey (annual, since 1989) which examines general public concerns about the environment, and their current actions. Specific measures of sector and company performance are also taken, but not reported in this volume;

•

MORI, ‘Spotlight on Waste - Consumer Behaviour and Attitudes’, 1998: a presentation given to the Spotlight on Waste Conference (March 1998), summarising MORI’s work on public attitudes towards the environment and recycling, and to local recycling and waste collection services;

•

MORI - Local Government Studies: various quantitative and qualitative projects conducted for Local Authorities between 1996 and 2002 on residents’ views of waste management and recycling in their area;

•

MORI/DoE, ‘Children’s Attitudes to Environmental Initiatives’, 1993: a quantitative survey examining 8-14 year olds’ willingness to participate in local environmental schemes; •

MORI/Scottish Office, ‘Public Awareness of Environmental Issues: Is the Message Getting
Through?’, 1992: a qualitative survey in Scotland examining people’s environmental behaviour and understanding of environmental issues/phrases;

•

Business Research Unit, ‘Environmental Issues Relating to Steel - Children’s Perspective’, July
1994;

•

NOP Research Group Ltd & Waste Watch, ‘What people think about waste’, 1998: a telephone survey of 1,600 adults, of which 400 were conducted of the general public, and 400 each were conducted in Bristol, the Wirral and Swale (Kent), to ascertain public attitudes towards waste disposal and recycling;

•

Pegram Walters Associates, ‘Consumer Attitudes to Packaging’, January 1993: a qualitative study consisting of 8 focus groups with adults at different life stages to explore perceptions of packaging and the packaging industry;

•

Pegram Walters Associates, ‘Consumer Attitudes to Packaging’, September 1993: a 15 minute questionnaire survey of 650 consumers, conducted face-to-face, in-street, to gain an understanding of consumers’ attitudes towards the issue of packaging;

•

Pegram Walters Associates, ‘Project Packaging II’, 1997: a 15 minute questionnaire survey of 600 consumers, conducted face-to-face, in-street, to update information of consumers’ attitudes towards packaging.

Statistical Reliability
The respondents to the questionnaire are only samples of the total "population", so we cannot be certain that the figures obtained are exactly those we would have if everybody had been interviewed (the "true" values). We can, however, predict the variation between the sample results and the "true" values from a knowledge of the size of the samples on which the results are based and the number of times that a particular answer is given. The confidence with which we can make this prediction is usually chosen to be 95% - that is, the chances are 95 in 100 that the
"true" value will fall within a specified range. The table below illustrates the predicted ranges for different sample sizes and percentage results at the "95% confidence interval":

Size of sample on which survey result is based
100 interviews
200 interviews
300 interviews
400 interviews
500 interviews
1,000 interviews

Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels
10% or 90%
30%or70%
50%
+
+
+
6
9
10
4
6
7
4
6
7
3
5
5
3
4
4
2
3
3

For example, with a sample size of 400 interviews where 30% give a particular answer, the chances are 19 in 20 that the "true" value (which would have been obtained if the whole population had been interviewed) will fall within the range of +5 percentage points from the sample result.
When results are compared between separate groups or samples, different results may be obtained. The difference may be "real," or it may occur by chance
(because not everyone in the population has been interviewed). To test if the difference is a real one - i.e. if it is "statistically significant", we again have to know the size of the samples, the percentage giving a certain answer and the degree of confidence chosen. If we assume a "95% confidence interval", the differences between the two sample results must be greater than the values given in the table overleaf.
For example with sample/base sizes of 200 and 200, the differences between the two sample results must be greater than ten percentage points to be statistically significance, if the findings being compared are around 50%.

Size of sample compared
100 and 100
100 and 200
100 and 300
100 and 400
200 and 200
300 and 300
400 and 400
500 and 500
1,000 and 1,000

Differences required for significance at or near these percentage level
10% or 90%
30%or70%
50%
+
+
+
8
13
14
7
10
12
7
10
11
7
10
11
6
9
10
5
7
8
4
6
7
4
6
6
3
4
4

Bibliography: Used Packaging from the Domestic Waste Stream’, 1999. A literature review of previous research and original research – quantitative national survey of 2,000 adults aged Resource Recovery Forum/Brook Lyndhurst/MORI, ‘Household Waste Behaviour in London’, 2001 MORI, Waste in Suffolk (2002): telephone survey through the local Citizens’ Panel, followed by a workshop of 30 residents • MORI, Hertfordshire waste strategy/WasteAware campaign (2000-02): consultation MORI, Leicestershire Waste Management Survey (2002): a postal survey with 1,971 residents responding; • MORI/DETR, ‘Public Attitudes Towards the Environment’, 1997: quantitative survey of This regular project (previously conducted in 1993 and 1989) examines a broad range of actions that people may take to protect the environment, and their general MORI, ‘Business & the Environment’, 1999: quantitative survey of 2,000 adults, aged 15+ throughout Great Britain, conducted face-to-face, in-home survey (annual, since 1989) which examines general public concerns about the environment, and their current actions MORI, ‘Spotlight on Waste - Consumer Behaviour and Attitudes’, 1998: a presentation given to the Spotlight on Waste Conference (March 1998), summarising MORI’s • MORI/DoE, ‘Children’s Attitudes to Environmental Initiatives’, 1993: a quantitative Through?’, 1992: a qualitative survey in Scotland examining people’s environmental behaviour and understanding of environmental issues/phrases; NOP Research Group Ltd & Waste Watch, ‘What people think about waste’, 1998: a telephone survey of 1,600 adults, of which 400 were conducted of the general