Factors Influencing Households’ Participation

in Organic Waste Separation

Filomena Maria Castelo Branco Soares Vitor, Environmental Engineer in the Department of
Solid Wastes at the Municipal Services of Water and Sanitation of Loures, Portugal

Maria da Graça Madeira Martinho, Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental

Sciences and Engineering at the Faculty of Sciences and Technology, New University of
Lisbon
CONTACT

Filomena Maria Castelo Branco Soares Vitor

Serviços Municipalizados de Água e Saneamento de Loures, Divisão de Resíduos Sólidos,
Rua Ilha da Madeira, 2, 2674-504 Loures, Portugal.
Tel.: +351 219 838 620; Fax: +351 219 838 629; E-mail: filomenus@gmail.com

Maria da Graça Madeira Martinho

Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Departamento de
Ciências e Engenharia do Ambiente, Monte de Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal.
Tel: +351 212 948 397; Fax: +351 212 948 554; E-mail: mgm@fct.unl.pt

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current context of the Portuguese and European environmental policy in biodegradable waste
management brings the need to increase the recovery of organic waste. The experience of several
countries shows that separate collection is an essential requirement for a large-scale biowaste
recovery, which allows obtaining a good quality final product. The separation behavior is
fundamental to the success of biowaste recovery systems. Identifying the factors that determine the
waste separation behavior and assess its significance, it’s an important instrument in formulating
communication strategies in order to increase participation rates in waste separate collection.
Several studies have been conducted internationally in the past decades about the influence of a
number of factors in the recycling behavior, like socio-demographic attributes, situational
conditions, attitudes towards the recycling behavior, personal and social norms, information and
knowledge and perceived behavioral control. This study focuses on the factors that influence
households’ organic waste separation behavior. The main investigation tool used to assess the
behavior was a face-to-face household survey, applied to a sample of 97 families living in a suburb
community, Urbanização da Portela, located in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, in the municipality of
Loures. The study area consists of 211 multi-residential buildings, located in a high-density
residential district with 15,441 inhabitants, served by a curbside, building to building, waste
collection system. The study aimed to identify and evaluate the recycling behavioral differences
between three groups of families: 1) SRO: families who separate their organic waste; 2) NRO_CC:
families who do not separate organic waste, in spite of living in buildings with convenient
containers available; 3) NRO_SC: families who neither separate organic waste, nor live in
buildings with organic waste containers available. The main results show that NRO_CC families
are very similar to SRO families in their socio-demographic characteristics, situational conditions
and even in their evaluation of the MSW management service. Their differences are related with the
variables that reflect specific attitudes towards the separation behavior, social norms, belief in
personal effort, importance assigned to the separate collection, perceived behavioral control,
information on biowaste and knowledge about the existence and purpose of the biowaste container.
The outcomes of the study also identified some operational improvements regarding the separate
collection system and the communication strategy with the households.

INTRODUCTION

Biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) management surely represents one of the current
challenges of sustainable waste management and is a crucial concern for local and national
authorities. The current context of the European environmental policy in BMW, embodied in the
new Waste Framework Directive, brings the need to increase the recovery of organic waste
(biowaste). The experience of several countries with high diversion rates of organic waste (e.g.
Germany, Austria, Denmark, Netherlands) shows that separate collection is an essential requirement
for a large-scale biowaste recovery and allows obtaining a good quality final product (ACRRGSR,
2005). Accordingly, the separation behavior is fundamental to the success of biowaste recovery
systems.

In general, public authorities are responsible for promoting the collection system and encouraging
the citizens’ participation. But are the citizens who decide to participate or not, they are the active
agent of the system. For that reason, a better understanding of the motivations that underlie the
recycling behavior is essential for the planning and promotion of successful marketing campaigns
and also for the design of convenient collection systems, both contributing to increase citizens
participation and involvement in waste recovery.

Identifying the factors that determine recycling behavior and assess its significance, it’s an
important instrument in formulating communication strategies in order to increase participation
rates. It is necessary to convince and involve citizens in waste separation, which is often done
ineffectively, because the real reasons why or not they participate are not well known. In Portugal,
despite the environmental policy concern on recycling, there are few studies on this issue and
relatively recent. In general, communication campaigns depend on the greater or lesser sensitivity
of the technicians responsible for their design and implementation.

Several studies have been conducted internationally in the past decades about the influence of a
number of factors in the recycling behavior, including:
 Socio-demographic attributes, like age, gender, education, family structure and socio-economic
status. Results are contradictory since in some studies there appears to be no relationship between
these variables and the behavior, and other demonstrate a relationship although weak (Hopper &
Nielsen, 1991; Gamba & Oskamp, 1994; Werner & Makela, 1998; Owens et al, 2000; Valle et al.,
2004).
 Situational conditions, associated with operational aspects of the collection system that might
facilitate or discourage the individual participation, like the presence, location, proximity, type,
size and hygiene of the MSW containers, and the particular characteristics of the recycling
collection system (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Vining & Ebreo, 1992; Gamba & Oskamp, 1994;
Margai, 1997; Vicente & Reis, 2008). Other related aspects are the existence of waste storage
space in the dwelling, unsorted waste garbage chute in the building and the existence of
housemaid (Derksen & Gartrell, 1993; Margai, 1997; Valle et al., 2004). Incentives, such as the
PAYT system (Porter et al., 1995); providing free collection equipment (Jacobs et al., 1984) and
giving information about recycling (Vicente & Reis, 2008), can help increase levels of
participation and amount of waste sent for recycling. When the collection system logistics are
convenient, cooperation with the recycling becomes easier, which may mitigate negative attitudes
about the behavior, like the perception of difficulty. The situational conditions have a different
degree of importance to recyclers and non-recyclers, which means that non-recyclers tend to give
more importance to aspects that are considered barriers to behavior and recyclers are willing to
overcome these barriers, not giving them much importance;
 Attitudes towards the recycling behavior are what determine whether the individual is for or
against to behave in a certain way. According to the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980), the attitude towards the behavior refers to the evaluation, positive or negative,
the individuals have on the behavior, it reflects their awareness on the outcome of that behavior
and how they evaluate this outcome. For several authors specific attitudes toward the recycling
behavior are strongly related to the specific behavior (Vining & Ebreo, 1992; Gamba & Oskamp,
1994; Werner & Makela, 1998; Valle et al. 2004, 2005; Vicente & Reis, 2008);
 Personal norms, reflect the beliefs of an individual regarding how to behave and therefore reflect
the personal satisfaction in performing the behavior. When acting in accordance with personal
norms, they will experience a strong sense of pride, but if a personal norm is violated, the
individual will undergo a feeling of guilt (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991);
 Social norms, reflect individuals’ beliefs about the expectations of their reference groups
(friends, neighbors, relatives) concerning their behavior and also their motivation to behave
accordingly to these expectations. The influence of social norms has been positively linked to the
recycling behavior in several studies (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Oskamp et al., 1991; Martinho,
1998; Valle et al., 2004, 2005). This influence is dependent on the characteristics of the recycling
program. The curbside collection systems are more subject to social pressure, since it is much
easier to identify and have a perception of who participates or not (Vining & Ebreo, 1990);
 Information and knowledge, citizens who are better informed on how to recycle are more likely
to participate than others, more and better information can make separation easier and reduce the
perception of difficulty. Several researches revealed that specific knowledge about the recycling
programs were important predictors of behavior and an essential condition for the effectiveness of
participation (Vining & Ebreo, 1992; Corral-Verdugo, 1996; Gamba & Oskamp, 1994; Vicente &
Reis, 2008). Another important aspect is to identify the most effective way to provide
information. According to Vicente & Reis (2008) the efficiency of information may vary
depending on how it is presented. Television, radio, newspapers and magazines facilitate the
transmission of messages to the general public. However, direct media through local
communication actions (mailings, local informative sessions, outdoors showing local residents
recycling and brochure distribution) may be more effective in transmitting recycling messages
that aim to extend individuals involvement;
 Perceived behavioral control, means the individuals’ perception regarding the difficulty in
performing the behavior and is associated with the perception of their own capacities to perform
the behavior, the existence of external conditions that might encourage or discourage the
behavior. Difficulties referred are generally related with the efforts required for separating, time
due to separate and transport waste, lack of sufficient storage space at home, distance to
deposition locations and lack of incentives and information. Even if the belief about the
environmental benefits of recycling is strong, the problems cited may discourage this behavior,
revealing in these cases inconsistency between attitudes and behavior (Martinho, 1998). Perceived
behavior control has been identified in several studies as a significant predictor of recycling
behavior (Taylor & Todd, 1995; Valle et al., 2005). The evaluation that individuals make of the
MSW management system may also affect their participation in recycling programs (Vining &
Ebreo, 1990, 1992; Martinho, 1998).

This study focuses on the factors that influence households' organic waste separation behavior.
Considering households living in the same district, with similar waste disposal and collection means
and the same conditions for joining the biowaste separate collection system, the question why some
participate and others do not, arises. What external factors or characteristics distinguish recyclers
from non-recyclers? Based on the results, what can be improved regarding the operational
conditions of the collection system or the communication strategy, that could contribute to motivate
citizens to participate in biowaste separation?
CASE STUDY

The area under study is a 1970’s suburb community, Urbanização da Portela, located in the Lisbon
Metropolitan Area, in the municipality of Loures. The area consists of 211 multi-residential high-
rise buildings, located in a high-density residential district with 15,441 inhabitants, 5,106 families
and only 0.95 km2 (Figure 1). It is a very homogeneous population with regard to socio-
demographic characteristics, with a high level of education (41% have higher education), high
proportion of potentially active population (77% between 15 and 64 years old) and low elder-child
ratio (81) compared with the national average. The average household size is 3 persons.

The population is served by a curbside, building to building, waste collection system, which allows
families to separate their wastes into 5 different streams: 1) paper and cardboard (since 1996); 2)
glass packaging (1999); 3) metal and plastic packaging (1999); 4) organic waste (2005); 5) residual
unsorted waste. These categories of waste are placed in the appropriate collective containers located
in each building (Figure 2). Residual unsorted and organic household waste must be placed in
plastic or paper bags before being deposited in the containers. Municipal solid waste (MSW)
collection is held during the night, between 11.00pm and 6.00am. Residual unsorted waste is
collected five times a week, organic waste six times and recyclables weekly.

Most buildings have designated areas and garage space where the waste disposal equipment is
stored. In this collection system, users are responsible for ensuring waste container hygiene and for
placing them outside the building to be collected. Building janitors, who in most cases live in the
building, usually performs this task. Also many of the buildings have garbage chutes on each floor
for unsorted waste disposal.

Serviços Municipalizados de Loures (SMAS Loures) in partnership with Valorsul implemented

household biowaste collection in Urbanização da Portela in 2005, under the scope of Program +
Valor. This is a separate collection and recovery program for biodegradable waste in Lisbon
Metropolitan Area (North). Biowaste is collected by SMAS Loures and transported for treatment by
anaerobic digestion.

Separate organic waste collection implementation was preceded by an intensive communication

campaign by SMAS Loures in collaboration with the Local Municipal Authority of Portela. This
campaign consisted of the following: 1) direct mailing (e.g. letters) to all households with the
project presentation and an invitation to participate; 2) an invitation to all condominium
administrators to a succession of informative meetings with the objective of clarifying doubts and
mobilizing participants. It is important to note that 66% of condominium administrators attended
those meetings. Their participation was crucial at this stage as they were the link between the
SMAS Loures and population and they had an important role of increasing membership among the
residents of their building. When the collection started, 73% of the buildings had joined the project;
3) free distribution of household containers for biowaste separation in kitchens, for all families
interested; 4) free distribution of 120 liters brown containers for biowaste deposits and collection, at
all buildings interested. Brown containers were assigned to all buildings where there was at least
one family interested in participating. The request could be made by the condominium
administrator, the building janitor or by any dweller, so as not to exclude anyone who had interest
in joining the project; 5) distribution of brochures, posters and stickers for containers with the
procedures and separation rules (Figure 3).

The study area is very homogeneous in terms of urban and building characteristics, socio-
demographic characteristics of the population and operational conditions of the MSW collection
system. The communication strategy regarding the biowaste collection system allowed all residents
to have access to the same information and the same conditions for joining the project. All these
aspects, that could influence the participation in the biowaste separation, only have small variations,
which allows for a better isolation of the variables that can determine the separation behavior.

Figure 3 – Domestic container for

separation, brown container for
Figure 1 – The study area Figure 2 – MSW containers collection and educational stickers

METHODOLOGY

Several research hypotheses were established, based on previous research, concerning the biowaste
separation behavioral determinants. The main investigation tool was a face-to-face household
survey of a sample of 97 families living in 51 buildings, conducted between June and July 2007.
Recycling behavior was measured by self-report, given the impossibility of observing the separation
behavior of the respondents.

The questionnaire included 56 questions concerning the following areas: A1) knowledge and
recycling behavior (applied to all households); A2) recycling behavior (applied only to non organic
waste recyclers); A3) knowledge and recycling behavior (applied only to organic waste recyclers);
B) evaluation and opinions (applied to all households); C) respondents context and socio-
demographic characteristics (applied to all households).

Some direct observation data was also collected on the same days the questionnaires were
administered. These related to the building typology and storage conditions, biowaste container
cleanliness and used capacity and organic waste wrapping inside the container.

The study aimed to identify and assess the recycling behavioral differences between different
buildings and groups of families. Depending on their answers and context, the families were
classified in three groups: 1) SRO group: families who separate their organic waste; 2) NRO_CC
group: families who do not participate in organic waste separation, in spite of living in buildings
with convenient brown containers available; 3) NRO_SC group: families who neither separate
organic waste, nor live in buildings with organic waste containers available. The distinction
between NRO_CC and NRO_SC intended to assess if the lack of convenient containers in the
building for the disposal of organic wastes is a cause for non-participation or a consequence of
households’ situational conditions or characteristics.

Several hypotheses were tested taking into consideration the three study groups and seeking to
evaluate their characteristics and differences. The methods used were statistical inference, chi-
square (χ2) for sampling frequencies and analysis of variance (on-way ANOVA) for the sampling
averages. The minimum level of significance accepted was p <0.05.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 presents the main results on socio-demographic characteristics for the groups in analysis.
 Table 1 – Socio-demographic characteristics of the groups in analysis
Groups
Variables Totals Statistical Tests
SRO NRO_CC NRO_SC
Gender (%)
Female 63.9 62.1 71.9 66.0 2 (2) = 0.76; n.s.
Male 36.1 37.9 28.1 34.0
Average age (years) 47.5 52.0 52.5 50.5 F (2) = 0.76; n.s.
Level of education (%)
Up to 12th grade education 16.7 32.1 61.3 35.8 2 (2) = 14.66; p<0.005
Attending college or higher 83.3 67.9 38.7 64.2
Socioeconomic status (%)
Upper and upper middle class 33.3 14.8 25.8 25.5
2 (4) = 4.31; n.s.
Middle class 38.9 55.6 35.5 42.6
Lower middle and middle class 27.8 29.6 38.7 31.9
Family structure
Household size (average) 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.9 F (2) = 0.76; n.s.
Presence of children in household (%) 19.4 20.7 25.0 21.6 2 (2) = 0.33; n.s.
Time of residence in the neighborhood (years) 23.5 24.2 22.1 23.4 F (2) = 0.42; n.s.
(n.s.) Non-significant

In general, the three groups in question are very homogeneous with respect to their socio-
demographic characteristics, because no significant differences were identified with regard to their
gender, age, socioeconomic status, family structure, presence of children in household and time of
residence in the neighborhood. The only significant difference identified was in the education level
of individuals NRO_SC, lower when compared to SRO (2(1)=14.18; p<0.000) and NRO_CC
(2(1)=5.01; p<0.05).

Table 2 shows the main results obtained regarding the situational conditions of the groups.

Table 2 – Results on the situational conditions of the groups in analysis

Groups
Variables Totals Statistical Tests
SRO NRO_CC NRO_SC
Condominium administrator (%)
Lives in the building 88.9 86.2 93.8 89.7 Fisher: n.s.
Does not live in the building 11.1 13.8 6.2 10.3
MSW containers responsible (%)
Building janitor 86.1 75.0 50.0 71.3 2 (2) = 10.69; p<0.01
Employed cleaning contractor 13.9 25.0 50.0 28.7
Garbage chute for unsorted waste disposal (%)
Use 27.8 62.1 59.4 48.5 2 (2) = 9.84; p<0.01
Don’t use 72.2 32.9 40.6 51.5
(n.s.) Non-significant

The first significant differences identified between groups concern their situational conditions. In
fact, the presence of a building janitor is significantly less frequent in buildings where NRO_SC
families live compared to SRO (2(1)=10.10; p<0.005) and NRO_CC (2(1)=10.10; p<0.05). Since
no differences were detected between groups SRO and NRO_CC, this means that the presence of a
building janitor, with the tasks of cleaning MSW containers and placing them for collection, does
not directly influence households separation behavior, but it can have a negative impact on
buildings joining the biowaste separate collection system (translated in the absence of a request for
the brown container). On the contrary to what one might expect, the presence of condominium
administrator living in the building does not appear to influence either joining the collection system,
or participating in biowaste separation.

Another important aspect concerns the use of garbage chutes for unsorted waste disposal, which is
significantly lower in SRO families when compared with the two groups not participating in
biowaste separation, NRO_CC (2(1)=7.70; p<0.01) and NRO_SC (2(1)=6.92; p<0.01). SRO
families separate the majority of the waste they produce using the building containers, which means
that they are less dependent on using the garbage chute for the disposal of their household waste.

Table 3 presents the main results achieved concerning the variables of information and knowledge.
 Table 3 – Results on the variables of information and knowledge
Groups
Variables Totals Statistical Tests
SRO NRO_CC NRO_SC
Information about organic waste separate collection
Received information on organic waste (%)
Yes 100.0 69.0 75.0 82.5 2 (2) = 12.55; p<0.005
No 0.0 31.0 25.0 17.5
Sources of information (%)
Educational materials 47.2 24.1 28.1 34.0 2 (2) = 4.55 ; n.s.
Someone told them 38.9 20.7 31.3 30.9 2 (2) = 2.49; n.s.
Mass media 11.1 17.2 9.4 12.4 Fisher: n.s.
Other sources 19.4 13.8 3.1 12.4 Fisher: n.s.
Doesn’t remember 13.9 0.0 18.8 11.3 Fisher: p<0.05 [3]
Number of information sources (average) 1.28 0.75 0.84 0.98 F (2) = 8.54; p<0.000
Knowledge about the organic waste separate
collection and recovery system (% correct answers)
Existence of brown container in the building 100.0 86.2 78.1 88.7 Fisher: p<0.05 [1]; p<0.005 [2]
Purpose of the brown container 97.2 69.0 53.1 74.2 2 (2) = 17.82; p<0.000
Organic waste treatment 8.3 10.3 6.3 8.2 Fisher: n.s.
Final products of organic waste processing 59.3 62.1 41.7 55.0 2 (2) = 2.51; n.s.
Knowledge Index (%) 66.7 56.9 47.3 57.4 F (2) = 5.81; p<0.005
(n.s.) Non-significant; [1] SRO e NRO_CC; [2] SRO e NRO_SC; [3] NRO_CC e NRO_SC

Concerning the information and knowledge variables, results depend on the analyzed aspect.
Individuals involved in biowaste separation (SRO), when compared with those not participating
(NRO_CC and NRO_SC), showed higher results regarding received information on separate
organic waste collection, number of sources indicated and knowledge about the existence and
purpose of the brown container. On the other hand, the type of information source referred to and
the knowledge about biowaste treatment, as well as about the final products of this treatment are
similar in all three groups. The overall index of knowledge about separate biowaste collection and
recovery system (built on the basis of the four items described on Table 3) only reveals significant
differences between NRO_SC and SRO groups, not the NRO_CC group.

Results obtained on the variables of assessment and opinion, are presented on Table 4.
Table 4 - Results on the variables of assessment and opinion
Groups
Variables Totals Statistical Tests
SRO NRO_CC NRO_SC
Perceived neighbors’ participation on organic waste
3.88 2.18 1.17 2.60 F (2) = 55.96; p<0.000
separation (1 to 5 scale)
Importance assigned to the existence of an organic waste
4.61 3.96 3.97 4.21 F (2) = 5.83; p<0.005
separate collection system (1 to 5 scale)
Advantages of the organic waste separate collection (%)
2 (2) = 0.75; n.s.
Improve the environment and hygiene 55.6 44.8 50.0 50.5
Waste recovery 44.4 27.6 21.9 32.0 2 (2) = 4.33; n.s.
To save or produce resources 27.8 37.9 31.3 32.0 2 (2) = 0.77; n.s.
To reduce waste needing treatment 25.0 20.7 18.8 21.6 2 (2) = 0.41; n.s.
Other advantages 11.1 10.3 3.1 8.2 2 (2) = 1.67; n.s.
Doesn’t know 0.0 27.6 18.8 14.4 Fisher: p<0.005 [1] e p<0.01[2]
Perceived behavioral control (1 to 5 scale) 4.11 3.25 3.50 3.66 F (2) = 7.05; p<0.005
Belief in personal effort to achieve separate organic
4.54 2.00 1.65 3.03 F (2) = 64.61; p<0.000
waste collection benefits (1 to 5 scale)
Quality assessment index on MSW management service
3.84 3.80 3.90 3.85 F (2) = 0.24; n.s
(1 to 5 scale)
NOTES: (n.s.) Non significant; [1] SRO e NRO_CC; [2] SRO e NRO_SC

The most important differences between families that separate RO and the two groups not
participating in separation are on the evaluation and opinion variables. In fact, recyclers (SRO),
compared to the other groups, have greater perceived neighbors’ participation on biowaste
separation and assign greater importance to the existence of a separate collection system. Moreover,
they have higher perceived behavioral control and most believe in the importance of their personal
efforts to achieve the benefits of separate collection.
Furthermore, contrary to what one might expect, the three groups did not reveal significant
differences in the awareness of the advantages conferred to the biowaste separate collection system
and in the quality assessment of the MSW management service, with respect to various aspects,
including the biowaste separate collection. The overall quality assessment index on MSW
management service was based on seven items related to urban cleaning, commingled and separate
waste collection.

Table 5 presents the results about the reasons for non-recycler families (NRO_CC and NRO_SC)
not separating biowaste, their availability to begin separating and what they need to start.
Table 5 – Motives for not separating and availability to begin
Groups
Variables
NRO_CC NRO_SC
Availability to begin separating organic waste (%)
Yes 33.3 60.0
Maybe 22.2 13.3
No 44.4 26.7
What is missing to begin organic waste separation (%)
Brown container 7.1 66.7
Personal reasons / Initiative / Information / More organic waste production 71.4 33.3
Storage space available at home / Container for separating at home 21.4 0.0
Motives not to separate organic waste (%)
Has no interest / Lack of time / Never thought about it / Doesn’t know how / No information 27.6 31.3
It’s too hard / It takes a lot of work 27.6 15.6
No space for storing / No container for separating at home 20.7 9.4
No brown container in the building 3.4 46.9
Others don’t participate / One person alone can’t make the difference / Doesn’t have sufficient waste 31.0 6.3
Other motive 10.3 6.3

As far as NRO respondents’ availability to start the biowaste separation is concerned, although
more NRO_SC mention being willing to begin when compared to NRO_CC, this difference is not
significant. However, when questioned about what they need to get started, NRO_SC individuals
differ significantly from NRO_CC (2(1)=13.00; p<0.005). NRO_SC, as expected, refer more often
to the need of a brown container, and most of NRO_CC individuals indicate personal reasons,
initiative, information or greater biowaste production. NRO_SC never referred to the lack of storage
space or container to separate at home, unlike the individuals NRO_CC.

CONCLUSION

The main differences between the two groups that have similar socio-demographic characteristics
and equivalent situational conditions (e.g. SRO and NRO_CC), are related to the variables that
reflect specific attitudes towards the biowaste separation behavior (i.e. social norms; importance
assigned to the biowaste separate collection system; perceived behavioral control; belief in personal
effort), information on biowaste and knowledge about the existence and purpose of the brown
container, which confirms Ajzens’ Theory of Planned Behavior. NRO_CC households are skeptical
toward biowaste separate collection and show less positive attitudes. Compared to the other two
groups, the NRO_SC group shows a lower education, less frequent presence of building janitors
living in the building and being responsible for maintaining and cleaning the waste containers, and
lower perceived neighbors’ participation. As reasons for not participating, the majority of NRO_SC
referred to the lack of appropriate collection equipment in the building; 60% of these households
stated that they are willing to participate and 67% indicated that they just need the brown container
to begin. This indicates that many of these families are potential participants.

As a measure to increase participation in biowaste separate collection, brown containers should be

installed in all buildings even without being requested. This should be duly accompanied by
informative sessions as to their purpose and acceptable materials. The existence of brown container
can help increase households’ perception about their neighbors’ participation, which in turn may
promote their greater involvement. It can also operate as a source of information and help increase
the awareness and knowledge about the separate collection system.
As previously mentioned, the lack of request of biowaste container for the building may be
associated with the absence of resident building caretaker, suggesting their importance in joining
the program. A promotion campaign aiming to raise more members in this neighborhood should be
initiated by mobilizing this group.

The majority of households living in buildings with brown container available, but choose not to
separate (NRO_CC), stated the reasons for their behavior was that "others don’t participate”, “they
alone can’t make the difference” or “they do not have enough organic waste". When asked what
they need to get started, the majority referred to personal reasons, initiative, information or greater
biowaste production. This shows that the existence of brown container in the building, although
essential for participation, is not by itself sufficient. There will always be a group of individuals
with less positive attitude, indifferent or resistant, that will be difficult to convince.

The outcomes of the study also identified some operational improvements regarding the separate
collection system and the communication strategy:
 The existence and use of garbage chutes for unsorted waste disposal, significantly reduces the
participation in biowaste separation. Some households gave this reason for not separating
(included in the answer "It takes a lot of work"). Some individuals suggested that by closing the
garbage chutes it would increase the participation in separate collection. The implementation of a
communication campaign for the promotion of garbage chutes closure could be a measure to
consider for the increase of family participation in recycling. Such a campaign must be well
planned and justified in addressing the various disadvantages of this way of garbage disposal, in
order to avoid opposition by the residents.
 Target audience for communication campaigns: Given the fact that the socio-demographic
attributes examined did not distinguish between recyclers and non-recyclers, it is not possible to
guide awareness campaigns to a targeted audience, based on this type of segmentation.
Nevertheless, the building janitors proved to be an essential element for the success of the
separate collection system, influencing the buildings admission to the system and promoting the
project. From an optimization of resources and efforts point of view, communication campaigns
should be directed preferentially to the building janitors or condominium administrators where
families do not participate just because they have no means to do so (no organic waste container
available). Subsequently, they should be directed to the families living in buildings with low
participation rates. In this case, the campaigns directed at individuals in the group NRO_CC, less
interested, skeptical, and with less favorable attitudes about the separation behavior, should have a
more a more specialized content "chirurgical".
 Sources of information: In the assessment SRO families made as far as the biowaste separate
collection system was concerned, the information received was the only aspect less favorably
evaluated. Therefore, new ways to inform and motivate people to change or continue their
separation behavior should be found. Local street actions, in specific locations closer to the
population, seem to have a positive effect on building and family membership. These kinds of
actions also seem to be preferred by individuals, as stated by some households as a good way to
increase participation. The distribution of compost and visits to the Biodegradable Waste
Processing Plant of Valorsul are other ways of spreading the message on the value of biowaste.
As a way to increase participation, households also referred to the demonstration of the outcomes
from the treatment of separated biowaste.
 Information content: Providing information that clarifies the separate collection process,
identifying the waste components to be separated and in what containers they should be deposited,
not forgetting to refer to the uncommon materials and those not accepted for recovery, allows
individuals to separate in a more efficient way. Future communication campaigns and its
information content should aim at reinforcing the motives given as reasons to participate and
neutralize those reported as reasons for not doing so. On one hand, the advantages of biowaste
 recovery should be presented in terms of environment benefits and its treatment and final products
(for which the respondents have demonstrated low levels of knowledge). Also the sense of civic
duty should be clarified. The fact that it is the personal responsibility of each citizen to contribute
to the solution of a problem that is caused by all. On the other hand, the statistics of families and
buildings involvement and participation and the evolution of the quantities collected should be
disclosed. This will help to establish the idea that there are already many families involved and
reduce the perception that only a few people participate. The perception of difficulty in
participating should also be contradicted by messages that clarify the specific tasks that
participants must perform, in order to make them easier from their point of view and demonstrate
how easy it is to separate biowaste.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Serviços Municipalizados de Água e Saneamento de Loures for allowing
the conduction of this study. Special thanks to Vincenzo Piepoli, all the technicians and organic
waste collection teams for their work. Special thanks to the colleges that helped in data collection.

REFERENCES

ACRRGSR (2005). Gestão dos resíduos domésticos biodegradáveis – Que perspectivas para as autoridades locais
europeias? Associação das Cidades e Regiões para a Reciclagem e a Gestão Sustentável dos Recursos. Lipor –
Serviços Municipalizados de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto. Setembro 2005.
Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs.
Corral-Verdugo, V. (1996). A structural model of reuse and recycling in Mexico. Environment and Behavior, 28 (5),
665-696.
Derksen, L.; Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American Sociological Review, 58 (3), 434-442.
Gamba, R. e Oskamp, S. (1994). Factors influencing community residents’ participation in commingled curbside
recycling programs. Environment and Behavior, 26, 587-612.
Hopper, J. R.; Nielsen, J. N. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior. Normative and behavioral strategies to expand
participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23 (2), 195-220.
Jacobs, H. E.; Bailey, J. S.; Crews, J. I. (1984). Development and analysis of community-based resource recovery
program. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17 (2), 127-145.
Margai, F. L. (1997). Analyzing changes in waste reduction behavior in a low-income urban community following a
public outreach program. Environment and Behavior, 29 (6), 769-792.
Martinho, M. G. (1998). Factores determinantes para os comportamentos de reciclagem. Caso de Estudo: Sistemas de
vidrões. Tese de doutoramento apresentada na Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
Lisboa, 1998.
Oskamp, S.; Harrington, M.; Edwards, T.; Sherwood, D.; Okuda, S.; Swanson, D. (1991). Factors influencing
household recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior, 23 (4), 494-519.
Owens, J.; Dickerson, S. e Macintosh, D. (2000). Demographic covariates of residential recycling efficiency.
Environment and Behavior, 32 (5), 637–650.
Porter, B. E.; Leeming, F. C.; Dwyer, W. O. (1995). Solid waste recovery. A review of behavioral programs to increase
recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27 (2), 122-152.
Taylor, S., e Todd, P. (1995). An integrated model of waste management behavior: A test of household recycling and
composting intentions. Environment and Behavior, 27 (5), 603-630.
Valle, P.O.; Reis, E.; Menezes, J.; Rebelo, E. (2004). Behavioral determinants of household recycling participation: the
portuguese case. Environment and Behavior, 36, 505-540.
Valle, P.O.; Rebelo, E.; Reis, E.; Menezes, J. (2005). Combining behavioral theories to predict recycling involvement.
Environment and Behavior, 37, 364-396.
Vicente, P.; Reis, E. (2008). Factors influencing households’ participation in recycling. Waste Management &
Research, 26, 140-146.
Vining, J.; Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and
Behavior, 22 (1), 55-73.
Vining, J.; Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and
changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (20), 1580-1607.
Werner, C. M.; Makela, E. (1998). Motivations and behaviors that support recycling. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 18, 373-386.