Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612 DOI 10.

1007/s00267-006-0363-y

The Value-Action Gap in Waste Recycling: The Case of Undergraduates in Hong Kong
Shan-Shan Chung Monica Miu-Yin Leung

Received: 11 October 2006 / Accepted: 23 April 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract The discrepancy between verbal and actual commitment in waste recycling and environmental behavior is thought to have attenuated the effectiveness of many environmental policy and measures. Studies purport to show the existence of such a value-action gap in environmental issues has been largely based on matching the verbal commitment to environmental value through selfreported environmental behavioral data. Therefore, there is a lack of direct evidence to prove that such a discrepancy exists. This study demonstrates a methodology (contrasting on-site observation with self-reported results) to measure the gap between verbal commitment and actual recycling behavior and provides an explanation on the recycling behavior of students at Hong Kong Baptist University in the hope that the lessons learnt can be generalized to a wider context. Our ndings indicate that a gap between verbal recycling commitment and corresponding action does exist in waste recycling on this university campus. By using multiple linear regression analysis, we found that the self-reported recycling behavior of undergraduates cannot be meaningfully explained by most variables previously suggested in the general value-action model. Keywords Hong Kong Recycling commitment Undergraduates Value-action gap

Introduction It has long been assumed that attitude is predictive of personal behavior (Armitage & Christian 2003). However, as more research was carried out, social psychologists began to investigate the potential moderators and mediators of the attitudebehavior relation (Armitage & Christian 2003). The structure and the strength of personal attitudes are such moderators (Armitage & Christian 2003, ORiordan 1981, Guagnano and others 1995, Hallin 1995, Baron & Byrne 1997). However, not all kinds of attitude are equally useful for predicting behavioral commitment. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) warned against the use of global attitudes to predict specic actions. In this regard, Weigel and others (1974) found that behavioral commitment exhibited varying degrees of correlation with attitudinal variables that had different degrees of specicity with the behavior in question: The more specic the attitude measured, the stronger would be its correlation with behavioral commitment. In addition, others found that attitudes were generally more predictive of behavior if they were accessible in memory (Kokkinaki & Lunt 1998) or personally involving (Thomsen and others 1995). These research ndings have formed the analytic backbone of environmental behavior research. Subsequently, many studies on environmental attitude and behavior have been founded on the attitudebehavior relation and the investigation of the potential moderators of this relation.

S.-S. Chung (&) Croucher Institute for Environmental Sciences, Department of Biology, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong e-mail: sschung@hkbu.edu.hk M. M.-Y. Leung Department of Biology, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

Explaining Environmental Behavior It is generally acknowledged that cognitive factors and attitudes, if considered alone, could not adequately explain

123

604

Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612

environmental action. For instance, Monroe (1993) and Hwang and others (2000) argued that possessing environmental knowledge did not guarantee positive environmental behavior. In contrast, Kempton and others (1995) found that even people having a low level of environmental literacy can be substantially involved in environmental action. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) substantiated the missing link, arguing that the intention to carry out a specic action must be present for that action to be carried out. Having such an intention would reect a persons (environmental) world views and beliefs, and these would also delineate that persons evaluation of the possible consequences of particular environmental actions (Blake 1999). Therefore, not only will it matter if a person is skeptical about a governments sincerity when it adopts an environmental policy measure (Hinchliffe 1996), but it is also generally the case that a negative and pessimistic person will have a weak intention to take environmental action. An example of environmental pessimism is the trivial personal contribution argument where an individual believes that their own environmental action will have little effect (Blake 1999) and therefore do not adopt relevant proenvironmental behavior. De Young (1990) and Wang and others (1997) were unable to establish a link between the attitude toward recycling and actual participation in recycling schemes because, as others have pointed out, external or situational constraints, including sociodemographic factors, were at work (ORiordan 1981, Guagnano and others 1995, Hallin 1995, Baron & Byrne 1997, Barr 2006, Henion 1976). One such moderator for environmental behavior is education. Researchers have shown that good education, together with personal traits, enhance environmental knowledge and proenvironmental behavior in a consistent way (Jones & Dunlap 1992). In this regard, Chung and Lo (2004) found that senior school leavers and university graduates tend to create less litter. Vencatasawmy and others (2000) concluded in their study on recycling practice in Sweden that the propensity to source separate waste would increase if the agent had more than an elementary school education. It is not surprising then that there is a general impression that college students are more receptive to the idea of responsible waste management or environmental activities (Anonymous 1993, Zezima 2005, Bogo 1999). Other socioeconomic situational constraints can also be inuential. People living in rich communities as well as older persons are found to be more active in waste recycling (Jacobs and others 1984, Mohai & Twight 1987, Vining & Ebreo 1990). Higher socioeconomic status has also been found to be correlated with a higher willingness to pay for air-quality improvement (Zeidner & Shechter 1988). Other situational variables, such as the bystander and the we-ness effects, are also thought to affect environ-

mental action. The bystander effect refers to the propensity of the observers to dilute or dissolve their own responsibility for helping because of the presence of others who presumably can render assistance instead. We-ness is a form of group identication wherein a person feels a behavioral congruence with others (Granzin & Olsen 1991). Studies have shown that proenvironmental action decreases when an agent recognizes that there are other potentially helping agents (Dietz & Black 1985/ 1986), whereas we-ness has been linked positively to an environmental helping tendency (Granzin & Olsen 1991). The model devised to explain environmental behavior has become increasingly complex as a result of the inadequacies of earlier theories, but there is a consensus that three groups of factors are involved in determining environmental behavior, namely cognitive, attitudinal (or value-based), and situational. This model on environmental action is hereafter referred to here as the general valueaction model.

Environmental Value-Action Discrepancies Although a profusion of variables are used in the predictions of behavior, a conspicuous discrepancy is found between the prediction of intention and that of behavior in various contexts, and this is known as the value-action gap (see LaPiere 1934, Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Not only is this gap a challenge to behavioral scientists, but also the discrepancy between verbal and actual commitment to waste recycling and environmental behavior has actually attenuated the effectiveness of many environmental policies and measures. For this reason it is important to examine why and in what form the gap exists. However, studies examining the environmental value-action gap have been largely based on matching certain environmental values with an indirect measurement of behavior, namely self-reported environmental behavior (see for instance, Blake 1999; other references mentioned in this section; and the environmental attitudes and behaviors of the Hong Kong public [see later]). Therefore, there is a lack of solid evidence on the true size of such a gap. This research not only tested the validity of the general value-action model in the case of university students in Hong Kong, but it also attempted to directly measure the gap between verbal and actual environmental commitment. Although this study focuses on a frequently studied environmental behavior, namely, waste recycling, the target group in this analysis, i.e., Chinese university students, has not been studied in depth. How environmentally receptive and committed are university elites in the most populated country in the world? Can their recycling commitment be

123

Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612

605

explained by the general value-action model? If not, what alternative explanation can be offered? Recycling behavior was chosen as the focus of this study because, compared with other environmental behavior, recycling commitment can be relatively accurately gauged and observed. Also, similar to the case in the United States (Marklein 2002), recycling is one of the most pervasive environmental programs on university campuses in Hong Kong. To offer a baseline for the interpretation of the study results, a review of the literature relevant to the environmental and recycling attitudes and behavior of university students and the Hong Kong public is presented. This is followed by an analysis of the ndings of a questionnaire survey and a 30-hour site-observation exercise. The article concludes with the suggestion of a different angle for looking at this phenomenon.

Simply put, these past studies show that there is a grim outlook for the environmental performance of university students. Although a commitment to waste recycling was linked to a greater environmental concern in university students, the students were not particularly knowledgeable about environmental issues. In addition, signs have emerged of a decreasing environmental commitment on the part of university students in developed countries, and a weak understanding of the environment was found among university students in China.

Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors of the Hong Kong Public In this section, the environmental and recycling attitude of the Hong Kong public is summarized, on the basis of the noted studies, to provide information on the background and the social setting that is necessary for understanding attitudes toward recycling. In 1994, 992 students from 28 secondary schools in Hong Kong were surveyed, and an overwhelmingly positive environmental attitude was found, including a high willingness to recycle articles at school and at home (Chan 1996). With an impressive sample size of 10,000 and a high response rate of 79%, a government survey in 2002 found that >50% of the households in Hong Kong had adopted the habit of separating recyclable material before waste disposal. Household recycling was found to be associated with the availability in the neighborhood of bins for the collection of separated waste. This government survey also noted an increase in support for recycling compared with a similar survey conducted 3 years previously (Social Surveys Section 2002). This survey indicated that the positive environmental and social values (environmental concern and a desire to facilitate better waste collection) held by the respondents were the main reasons engendering the recycling habit. The main reasons cited for not recycling included the perceived insignicance of the contribution of a single individual and the excessive personal trouble incurred. A more diligent recycling habit was also found to be associated with higher household income, with the age range of 30 to 49 years, and with female sex (Social Surveys Section 2002). By interviewing 173 household members on 1 public housing estate in Hong Kong, Chan (1998) also showed that attitude was the major factor in predicting environment-related behavioral intentions. However, the existence of a value-action gap was indirectly suggested in a much earlier study in which >98% of Hong Kong people agreed that they had the responsibility to protect the environment, yet only 30% to 60% of the same respondents reported that they had actually practiced

Literature Review on the Environmental Attitudes and Behavior of a University Population Although only a limited amount of literature has been published on this aspect, every effort was made to review as many of the available studies as possible. Wright and Floyd (1992) found that those university students who participate in recycling show a greater concern for the environment than their counterparts who do not recycle. Gigliotti (1992) compared the environmental attitudes of undergraduate students at Cornell University in 1970 and 1990 and found that the students in 1990 were less willing to make personal sacrices than the students in 1970. Meffe (1994) concluded that biology students at universities were not fully aware of even the fundamental issues of potential environmental disaster. Holl and others (1999) compared the environmental knowledge and attitudes of students of Costa Rica University and Stanford University in 1993. Among the personal behavioral changes covered in their survey questions, waste recycling was the one that was mostly widely perceived as personal behavior that can decrease environmental impact by the students of Stanford University (Holl and others 1999). Another survey in Ireland covering 1500 members of the public found that there were many fewer excellent managers of waste in the 18- to 29-year-old age group than in other age groups (Davies and others 2005). Wong (2003) carried out a survey in 1998 of 350 students from 10 major universities in Beijing. He found that <6% of university students acknowledged the notion that everyone (including ordinary citizens) was responsible for protecting the environment (Wong 2003). This worrying conclusion concerning Chinese college students was unfortunately echoed in two other studies reviewed, i.e., Holl and others (1999) and Gigliotti (1990).

123

606

Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612

environmental behavior (Environmental Campaign Committee 1993). Similarly, Chung and Poon (2000) found a strong verbal commitment (behavioral intention) to waste recycling in a series of studies conducted from 1992 to 1998, including growing support for the source separation of household waste from 77% to 95% during the same period in the Hong Kong community. However a valueaction gap on waste recycling was also notable because only 18% of these respondents reported that they were in fact recovering waste in any way (Chung & Poon 2000). In conclusion, although proenvironment and prorecycling attitudes have been overwhelmingly expressed and are constantly growing among people in Hong Kong, a value-action gap appears to have persisted in the Hong Kong community throughout the 1990s. Past empirical data have also shown that the recycling habits of the Hong Kong public can largely be explained by the general value-action model. However, it should be noted that none of the studies directly measured environmental behavior, and the conclusions drawn on the value-action gap are based only on anecdotal data supplied by the respondents. For instance, in her discussion on the attitudebehavior relation, Chan (1996) concluded only that there is a strong correlation between the environmental concern of secondary school students and their readiness (rather than their actual behavior) to adopt specic proenvironmental behavior. This research has the aim of mapping actual behavior together with the verbal commitment to recycling, and as such we consider that it will contribute signicantly to the study of environmental behavior in Hong Kong.

prominently labeled in English and in Chinese with the type of material accepted. This is an on-going scheme, and no other promotional publicity would normally be conducted. Of a total of 21 recycling bin locations, the 4 that were believed to be the most visited were observed for a total of 30 hours at the end of September 2004. The minimum observation unit was 3 consecutive hours. This was considered to be long enough to identify any recycling patterns that may arise during lunch, tea, or lecture breaks. All of the observations were carried out between 10:30 AM and 5:30 PM, and the observation schedule was carefully planned to avoid time period repetitions. During the on-site observations, the observer recorded the number of times that students were found to either correctly or incorrectly use the recycling bin and the number of times that students discarded recyclables in normal waste bins in the proximity. Three groups of explanatory variables were included in the classical linear regression model as explanatory variables to test the validity of the general value-action model for our empirical data: (1) 1cognitive variable and (2) 8 situational variables, including 4 sociodemographic and 4 nonsociodemographic situational variables (see Table 1) Detailed specications of these variables will be given before the discussion of the regression results. Representativeness and Validity of the Results In terms of sex distribution, the male-to-female ratio in the questionnaire survey sample was 1:1.54, which was close to the ratio of 1:1.5 in the target population (HKBU 2004). However, rst-year students and science students were overrepresented, and students of the Social Science Faculty and the School of Business were underrepresented. The internal consistency of the data was measured by a number of specially designed procedures. The results for these procedures showed that the respondents provided consistent answers. In the rst procedure, the responses to two questions covering the same issue but put in opposing terms were compared, and a signicant correlation was noted (N = 350, correlation coefcient = 0.165, p = 0.002, two-tailed). A variation of this procedure is to see if converging conclusions are drawn when using different statistical methods. By looking at the frequency distribution only, more than one third of the infrequent recycling participants attributed their lukewarm support for recycling to two situational variables, namely the lack of recycling bins and the small amount of recyclables generated. The latter reason echoes the implication drawn from the regression model which, based on answers to a different question, found that recyclable-generation frequency (RG) is an inuential and highly signicant variable in explaining recycling frequency (see Table 1). In addition, an independent-sample Student t test comparing the responses

Recycling Behaviors and Preferences of Students at the Hong Kong Baptist University Methodology Both a questionnaire survey and eld observations were used for this study. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed to students who visited the common rooms and canteens of Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) during October and November 2004. Altogether, 386 completed questionnaires were collected, representing a response rate of 97%. The survey was conducted in English and covered three areas: (1) personal particulars, (2) environmental attitudes of the respondents and other aspects of the HKBU waste recycling scheme, and (3) actual participation of students in the scheme. Field observations on the use of recycling bins were also conducted. At HKBU, recycling bins are integrated units that contain 5 different receptacles for waste articles, plastic beverage bottles, aluminum cans, ink cartridges, and toner cartridges. The aperture for each receptacle is

123

Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612 Table 1 Results of linear regressionsa Independent variables (S1 through S9c and RG) Standardized coefcients 0.044 0.002

607

VIFd Mean

CO: Cognition of campus recycling programme (0 = no recognition; 1= answer one question correctly; 2 = answer both questions correctly) S1: Protecting the environment is the responsibility of every Hong Kong citizen

1.058 0.52 1.432 1.38 1.227 2.60 1.312 1.74 1.666 1.72 1.346 2.20 1.305 3.01 1.282 2.48 1.501 3.22 1.175 1.94 1.061 1.19

S2: When making my purchase, I will take into account the environmental impact of the items that I 0.017 want to buy. S3: I usually prefer double-sided printing/ photocopying rather than single-sided printing/ photocopying. 0.089 S4: Wastes should be source separated and recycled so as to save more landll space. S5: I will support by personal action in the source separation of household wastes. S6: I am satised with the locations of the waste-separation bins placed on the campus. S7: I am satised with the design of waste-separation bins in general (including both the three colour coded recycling bins and the BEE recycling bins). S8: There is adequate publicity of environmental activities (including Waste Recycling Scheme) on campus. S9: The university should put more effort to promote waste recycling on the campus. RG: Recyclable-generation frequency [log (0 = never; 1 = once a year; 2 = once half a year; 3 = once a month; 4 = once a week; 5 = daily or more frequent)] Control variables (GN, FS, ED, FY) GN: sex (female = 1, male = 0) FS: Science student (science undergrad = 1, others = 0) ED: Year of study FY: Per capita monthly family income (1 = <2500, 2 = 25015000, 3 = 500110,000, 4 = 10,001 15,000, 5 = >15,001)
a

0.005 0.117e 0.023 0.056 0.178* 0.061 0.554*

0.087 0.023 0.026 0.059

1.113 0.61 1.116 0.21 1.189 1.82 1.065 3.03

Model summary: adjusted R2 = 0.34, F = 12.664, p = 0.000, db = 1.913, N = 341. Dependent variable (RF = recycling frequency). log (0 = never; 1 = once a year; 2 = once half a year; 3 = once a month; 4 = twice a month; 5 = once per week; 6 = twice per week; 8 = daily or more frequent)

b Durbin-Watson d statistics: a test to detect autocorrelation and has a value between 0 and 4; if d = 0, then perfect positive correlation is found, and if d = 4, perfect negative correlation is found. In contrast, when d equals 2, no autocorrelation is found c d

S1 through S9: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree

VIF: The VIF has a minimum value of 1, which indicates no multicollinearity. Theoretically, there is no upper bound for the value of VIF. The larger the VIF value, the greater the multicollinearity problem in the regression model Signicant effects BEE = Better Environmental Endeavor

concerning the availability of sufcient recycling bins obtained from four different questions was carried out. The results show that the group citing the lack of recycling bins as a reason for infrequent recycling gave a signicantly lower bin adequacy score than the other groups (t = 2.418, p = 0.017, two-tailed). Therefore, it appears that these infrequent recyclers genuinely believe that there are not enough recycling bins on campus, and these data are internally consistent. Because the environmental attitude of the respondents was measured by ve environmental attitude statements, namely S1 through S5 (see Table 1) in the subsequent analysis, Cronbachs alpha was used to measure the scales internal reliability. A minimally adequate reliability of 0.6942 in the alpha coefcient was obtained. Judging from the corrected item-total correlation coefcients, the statement on environmental consideration at purchase (i.e., S2)

has the least relation with the rest of the statements, and if it is removed the alpha coefcient, it will have a satisfactory coefcient of 0.7 (Leech and others 2005). Therefore, it was concluded that the scores for S1 through S5 did not form a good summative score to measure the overall environmental literacy of the respondents. Therefore, they were used as ve separate independent variables in the multiple linear regression procedures.

Results and Discussion Verbal Commitment and Actual Participation in Recycling Table 2 lists the students self-reported participation in the recycling scheme. Some 80% of the students generated

123

608 Table 2 Self-report participation in the Waste Recycling Scheme Item Response (%)
30
fully supported by actions all the time whenever possible

Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612

%
40
Mean = 3.573 N = 344 never supported action

1. How recyclable are handled usually (N = 350) Put into the waste separation bins Put into the normal waste bins 2. Frequency of producing recyclable wastes (N = 350) Daily or more frequent Once wk Once mo Once 6 mo Once yr Never 3. Frequency of using waste separation bins (N = 350) Daily or more frequent (no need to answer item 4) Twice wk (no need to answer item 4) Once wk (no need to answer item 4) Twice mon (no need to answer item 4) Once mo Once 6 mo Once yr Never 4. Reasons for the infrequent use of waste-separation bins (N = 156)a Seldom produce recyclable wastes on campus Never produce recyclable wastes on campus Usually use normal waste bins Recycling bins are too far away or difcult to nd Design of recycling bins does not facilitate use Recycling bins are usually full Other reasons
a

50.9 49.1
20

10

44.9 35.7 10.3 2.0 2.6 4.6 7.7 12.9 21.7 13.1 20.0 8.3 4.3 12.0
0 1 2 3 4
5 6

Fig. 1 Self-assessment of recycling commitment

26.1 4.8 38.8 25.0 2.7 1.6 1.0

Not answered by frequent recyclers, and respondents could select more than one option

recyclables at rates of between once a day and once a week, but only approximately 42% of the respondents recycle at a corresponding rate. Because there is no facility at HKBU in which the students can store recyclable waste, and the only means of disposal is the recycling bins or the waste bins, the most logical conclusion for such a mismatch in recyclable generation and recycling rates is that the students do not recycle most of the time. This conclusion can be validated by other more direct evidence: (1) approximately half of the respondents admitted that they would normally put recyclable material into a waste bin instead of recycling it (Table 2 [item 1]) and (2) the right-skewing distribution of their own recycling commitment (Fig. 1). Verication of the self-reported recycling frequency at HKBU was carried out in the 30-hour on-site observation program. At the time of the research, there were 7913 full

time students at HKBU. Assuming that on average each student would spend approximately 10 calendar months or 300 calendar days a year at the university, and based on the self-reported recycling frequency shown in Table 2, each recycling bin would have, on average, 5 to 6 visits (including deposition of inappropriate materials)/h. However, the eld record showed that only 53 students used the waste-separation bins, whether correctly or incorrectly, during the 30 hours of observation. Therefore, a recycling frequency of 1.76 visits/site/h was obtained. Because the busiest hours were deliberately chosen for observation, it can be fairly assumed that 1.76 is likely to be at the higher end of the normal bin use rate. In addition, immature recycling practices were noted for 19 students (26.4%). Of these, 17 put recyclable waste into the nearby normal waste bins (approximately 5 to 10 meters away from the recycling bins), and two put the wrong materials into the recycling bins during the observation period (corresponding to a frequency of 0.07/site/h for deposition of rejects). The results indicate that there are reasons to believe that the respondents overstated their recycling frequency and that the frequency reported may simply reect what the agent thinks it would have been correct to do or what they would like to have done rather than what they actually have done, i.e., their intentions. This is highly suggestive, if not yet proof, of an environmental valueaction gap, which is at least 2 times the true rate of commitment. How Do HKBU Students Compare with Other University Students? Although it may be useful to evaluate the recycling performance of Hong Kong undergraduates on the world scale, comparable data on the recycling performance of undergraduates in other countries are scarce in the public domain. The only information available for comparison comes from Wright and Floyd (1992) who found in 1990

123

Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612

609

that 57% of the Ohio State University students were current recyclers at that time. If the responses to item 1 (see Table 1) are used to draw the line between current recyclers and nonrecyclers for HKBU students, the self-reported recycling commitments of both universities seem to differ only slightly. Yet, two further points must be taken into consideration. First, the recycling performance selfreported by HKBU students is likely to be an overstatement and, second, the Ohio data were measured almost 14 years ago. In short, the environmental commitment of university students in Hong Kong appears to be very much behind that of their United States counterparts and is less than impressive. Explaining the Value-Action Gap By regressing the student-reported recycling frequency on 15 variables from the general value-action model, we sought to discover whether the general model accurately predicts behavior in the samples. We must acknowledge that the dependent variable is not a direct measurement of environmental action. However, gathering detailed behavioral data at the individual level invariably involves direct monitoring and could be considered intrusive of the respondents privacy. It is therefore difcult to obtain permission to make such measurements, even within the university setting. Therefore, in this respect, we were not able to go beyond what other researchers have previously done (see, for instance, Maloney & Ward 1973, Scott & Willits, Hamid & Cheng 1995), namely, to use self-reported data rather than actual measurement of action as a dependent variable. Of the ve attitudinal variables, S1 to S4 measured personal environmental attitudes, and S5 measured behavioral intentions on recycling. In the light of the work of Weigel and others (1974), of the ve attitudinal variables, the environmental responsibility variable (S1) and the green-purchasing variable (S2) were designated as being less specic to recycling, whereas the other three variables, S3 to S5, were considered to be from moderately to very recycling-specic attitudinal variables. Furthermore, these attitudinal variables were all accessible in memory and S2, S3, and S5 directly involved the person. Although only one cognitive variable was used, it was in fact the aggregated score of the respondents answers to two questions regarding the recyclable materials accepted by the HKBU campus recycling program (see Table 1). S6 to S9 and RG were the ve variables measuring the respondents perceptions of the recycling program setups and represented external constraints or situational variables. Of these, RG was the most specic to waste recycling. Certain sociodemographic related situational variables, namely, sex, being a science student, family

income, and year of study, were also included to act as control variables (see Table 1). Because the dependent variable, recycling frequency, and one of the independent variables, recyclable-generation frequency, were measured in exponential values, the natural log values of these two variables were used in the linear regression. The regression model was signicant and had a satisfactory explanatory power of 0.34. The variance ination factors (VIFs) and values of Durbin-Watson d showed that both the multicollinearity and autocorrelation phenomena were not concerns for any of the variables except for S4 in this model. Table 1 lists the results of the regression and the detail of the dependent variables tested in the model. The coefcient of the behavioral intention variable (S5) was different from zero, and this conforms to the general value-action model. However, the nondemographic situational variable, namely, recyclable-generation frequency, had the greatest inuence on recycling frequency. This was followed by the intensity of environmental publicity on campus and S5. The cognitive variable did not test signicant. Altogether, although all of the coefcients had the expected signs, only one attitudinal variable and only two situational explanatory variables (RG & S8) tested significant. Although RG was signicant and had the greatest inuence on the dependent variable, this was a rather trivial nding, and it did not indicate in any useful manner the ways to increase participation in environmentally sound recycling. Although the regression results were not insightful, the responses were themselves consistent (see previous section). Encouraging Discursive Consciousness A more interesting nding is that 47% of the infrequentrecycling participants indicated a seemingly tautologic reason for not recycling, i.e., that they put recyclables in the normal waste bin when the recyclable was generated on campus. What does this indicate? Giddens structuration theory throws some light on this phenomenon. Giddens (1984) argued that routine practice is a form of hidden knowledge called practical consciousness. This knowledge enables individuals to take action in daily life without having to make new decisions each time. However, Giddens (1984) also argued that individuals think and talk with discursive consciousness, which constitutes a body of knowledge and is anchored in values and experience. Despite the dichotomous nature of the two, the boundary between practical and discursive consciousness is movable through time and experience. In our attempts to explain why a tautologic reason is cited for not recycling, we found that Giddens assertion

123

610

Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612

that the boundary between a recursive and a discursive state of mind is uid is borne out by our observations. When we examine the attitudinal and behavioral attributes of the 172 (casual) recycling participants who admitted in this survey that they normally would put recyclables into waste bins, 98% of them agreed or strongly agreed that citizens have the responsibility to protect the environment, more than one third would take environmental impact into account when making daily purchases, and approximately one third also recycle regularly (at least once a month). Only 20% of them made reference to situational constraints, such as inconvenient recycling bin locations and bin design, that hampered their recycling. So, ironically, despite their favorable view of environmental responsibility and green purchasing (an indication that they have an environmentally friendly discursive consciousness), they would continue to normally put recyclables in the waste bin instead of in the recycling bin because their routine behavior is more strongly inuenced by practical consciousness. Therefore, there is an indication that a substantial proportion of casual recycling participants are behaving in a contingent process of moving the practical and discursive consciousness boundary back and forth, i.e., they do recognize and are receptive to environmental values, but they do not always pay attention to or apply these values and rather let the recursive state of mind rule their behavior. Although Giddens structuration theory does not enlighten us on how discursive consciousness can be effectively promoted at the expense of practical consciousness, Hobsons experiment (2003) may throw more light on this aspect. Based on interviews with participants of a sustainable behavior change program in the United Kingdom, the study ndings suggest that to bring the discursive consciousness into play to positively inuence the recycling behavior of these individuals, two steps are necessary: (1) an event (such as getting them to answer this survey questionnaire) to lower the barrier imposed by practical consciousness on discursive consciousness so that a questioning the unquestioned process is triggered and (2) providing them with information that would lead them to connect their individual actions with environmental impacts. If the boundary between discursive and recursive consciousness is really as uid as Giddens has suggested, triggering the questioning process should not be a daunting task. Even mnemonic tricks, such as putting up a sign at the waste bin to remind the bin users to think before discarding a recyclable item together with nonrecyclable trash, should work for many uncommitted recyclers. Yet a long-standing problem still remains unanswered: How persistent can discursive consciousness be, and what would make the agent eventually revert to recursive consciousness?

Choosing Between Theories How can recycling behavior be predicted? In our study, we found that few of the commonly used variables (and variable types) were good predictors of recycling behavior. Because we investigated only the behavior of undergraduates, the effect of the education variable on environmental behavior was evidently not taken into account. Could this be the missing link? We do not believe, however, that education per se is an important explanatory variable because previous studies have not found that it has a consistent positive effect on recycling. For instance, in Wrights (1991) study, education was found to be positively correlated with recycling behavior in Bloomington but not in the state capital of Indianapolis, and Chung and Poon (2000) also did not nd that education was associated with recycling behavior in any signicant way. So we must search further for the factors that may have been overlooked. Having said that, and in view of the resemblance between what we have found about our respondents state of mind and Giddens structuration theory, an alternative approach to explaining the value-action gap in recycling may be appropriate. Admittedly, the way in which structuration theory explains the value-action gap is not particularly insightful. It simply acknowledges the existence of such a gap and, depending on whether or not the agent is of a discursive state of mind, the gap is sometimes conspicuous and sometimes not. But could it be possible that Giddens explanation is closer to the truth than the general value-action model? The problem is how to choose between theories that appear to have similar explanatory power. In this regard, the rule of thumb for theory selection calls for the application of Occams razor, which implies that simplicity is a virtue. Therefore, in view of the unsatisfactory explanatory power of the increasingly complex general value-action model, Giddens hypothesis, although equally incapable of fully explaining the valueaction gap, is simpler and therefore better than a complex theory. In short, it may be more realistic simply to accept the ubiquitous yet changeable nature of the environmental value-action gap and focus on preventing the noncommitted discursive state of mind from reverting to practical consciousness.

Conclusion Although every step was taken to make use of probability sampling to select the respondents, our results are still based on samples from only one university. It must also be acknowledged that the importance of various evident constraints on action will vary widely in different

123

Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612

611 Blake J (1999) Overcoming the value-action gap in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment 4:257278 Bogo J (1999) Sustainability 101: using the community as a classroom, colleges are rewriting the standards for environmental education. The Environmental Magazine 10:3640 Chan K (1996) Environmental attitudes and behaviors of secondary schools students in Hong Kong. The Environmentalist 16:279 306 Chan K (1998) Mass communication and pro-environmental behavior: waste recycling in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management 52(4):317325 Chung SS, Poon CS (2000) A comparison of waste reduction practices and new environmental paradigm in four southern Chinese areas. Environmental Management 26:195206 Chung SS, Lo CWH (2004) Waste management in Guangdong cities: the waste management literacy and waste reduction preferences of domestic waste generators. Environmental Management 33:692711 Davies AD, Taylor F, Fahy M, Honora M, OCallaghan-Platt A (2005) Environmental attitudes and behavior: values, actions and waste management: nal report. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, 2001-MS-SE2-M1, Wexford, UK De Young R (1990) Recycling as appropriate behavior: a review of survey data from selected recycling education programs in Michigan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 3:253266 Dietz T, Black JS (1985/1986) Support for environmental protection: the role of moral norms. Population and Environment 8:206222 Environmental Campaign Committee (1993) Survey of community attitudes to the environment. Hong Kong Environmental Campaign Committee (2002) Waste recycling scheme in tertiary and vocational institutes. Available at: http:// www.ecc.org.hk/new/inside-core15.asp. Accessed November 13, 2005 Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. Polity Press, London, UK Gigliotti LM (1990) Environmental education: what went wrong? What can be done? Journal of Environmental Education 22:912 Gigliotti LM (1992) Environmental attitudes: 20 years of change? Journal of Environmental Education 24:1526 Granzin KL, Olsen JE (1991) Characterizing participants in activities protecting the environment: a focus on donating, recycling, and conservation behaviors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 10:128 Guagnano G, Stern P, Dietz T (1995) Inuences on attitude-behavior relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior 27:699718 Hallin P (1995) Environmental concern and environmental behavior in Foley, a small town in Minnesota. Environment and Behavior 27:558578 Hamid PN, Cheng ST (1995) Predicting anti-pollution behavior: the role of molar behavioral intentions, past behavior and locus of control. Environment and Behavior 27:679698 Henion KE (1976) Ecological marketing. Grid Inc., Columbus, OH Hinchliffe S (1996) Helping the earth begins at home: the social construction of socio-environmental responsibilities. Global Environmental Change 6:5362 Hobson K (2003) Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process in questioning household consumption practices. Local Environment 8:95112 Holl KD, Daily GC, Daily SC, Ehrlich PR, Bassin S (1999) Knowledge of and attitudes toward population growth and the

communities. However, our ndings are internally consistent and are also consistent with a number of overseas studies. We chose to study university students because they are the future decision makers in their societies. As powerful voting groups, university graduates also play an important role in arousing popular concern for social issues in societies. Consequently, the environmental commitment of these future elites should have a profound inuence on their societies future directions with respect to sustainability, and the conclusions from our study would have a reference value also for other situations. It is therefore disappointing to learn that Hong Kong undergraduates fail to match their United States counterparts in their concern for the environment and have evidently overestimated their own recycling commitment. Although few studies have been undertaken to determine the size of the environmental value-action gap in other parts of the world, there is reason to believe that similar discrepancies are ubiquitous if not dominant in all age and social groups. To close this value-action gap, it is suggested that continuous, extensive, and innovative techniques to increase environmental awareness should be implemented at strategic points at which discrepancies between an individuals environmental values and actions are most likely to occur. If those who give only verbal support to environmental values are reminded of the importance of those values, one would hope that they would then make their environmental actions t their words. A related issue is to prevent those who have developed a new awareness of the need to change their way of acting from reverting to their former states. This study, however, does not provide any solution for this issue because few of the hypothesized explanatory variables were found to affect self-reported environmental behavior in any signicant way.

Acknowledgments This research was supported and nancially sponsored by the Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty Research Grant (Project No. FRG/04-05/I-49), and the Environmental, Health and Safety Unit of the Hong Kong Baptist University.

References
Anonymous (1993) School recycling programs earn high marks. American City and County 108:51 Armitage CJ, Christian J (2003) From attitudes to behavior: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behavior. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social 22:187195 Baron R, Bryne D (1997) Social psychology, eighth edition. Bacon and Allyn, Boston, MA Barr S (2006) Environmental action in the home: investigating the value-action gap. Geography 91:4354

123

612 environment: university students in Costa Rica and the United States. Environmental Conservation 26:6674 Hwang YH, Kim SL, Jeng JM (2000) Examining the causal relationships among selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. The Journal of Environment Education 31:1924 Jacobs HE, Bailey JS, Crews JI (1984) Development and analysis of a community-based resource recovery programme. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 17:127145 Jones RE, Dunlap RE (1992) The social bases of environmental concern: have they changed over time? Rural Sociology 57:28 47 Kempton W, Boster JS, Hartley JA (1995) Environmental values in American culture. MIT Press, Cambridge, UK Kokkinaki FP, Lunt (1998) The relationship between involvement, attitude accessibility and attitude behavior consistency. British Journal of Social Psychology 36:497509 LaPiere RT (1934) Attitudes vs actions. Social Forces 13:230237 Leech NL, Barrett KC, Morgan GA (2005) SPSS for intermediate statistics: use and interpretation, second edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, UK Maloney MP, Ward MP (1973) Ecology: lets hear from the people. American Psychologist 28:583586 Meffe GK (1994) Human population control: the missing awareness. Conservation Biology 8:310313 Marklein MB (2002) The old Earth-friendly try; More colleges should follow Mich.s lead, groups say. USA Today, April 29, p. D06. Mohai P, Twight BW (1987) Age and environmentalism: an elaboration of the Buttel Model using national survey evidence. Social Science Quarterly 68:798815 Monroe MC (1993) Changing environmental behavior. Clearing 77:2830 O Riordan T (1981) Environmentalism, second edition. Pion, London, UK

Environ Manage (2007) 40:603612 Scott D, Willits FK (1994) Environmental attitudes and behavior: a Pennsylvania survey. Environment and Behavior 26:239260 Social Service Section (2002) Thematic household survey report no. 9. Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong The Hong Kong Baptist University (2004) Facts and gures 2003(2004). Available at: http://www.hkbu.edu.hk. Accessed November 14, (2005) Thomsen CJ, Borgida E, Lavine H (1995) The causes and consequences of personal involvement. In: Petty RE, Kronsnick JA (eds.). Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ pp 191214 Vencatasawmy C P, Ohman M, Brannstrom T (2000) A survey of recycling behavior in household in Kiruna, Sweden. Waste Management and Research 18:545556 Vining J, Ebreo A (1990) What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior 22:5573 Wang FS, Richardson AJ, Roddick FA (1997) Relationships between set-out rate, participation rate and set-out quantity in recycling programs. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20:117 Weigel RH, Tognacci LN, Vernon DTA (1974) Specicity of the attitude as a determinant of attitude-behavior congruence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30:724728 Wong KK (2003) The environmental awareness of university students in Beijing, China. Journal of Contemporary China 12:519536 Wright PA, Floyd DW (1992) Integrating undergraduate research and teaching in environmental education: Ohio States Earth Day project. Journal of Environmental Education 23:2229 Wright RE (1991) An investigation of the relative importance of factors inuencing recycling behavior. Doctoral thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN Zeidner M, Schechter M (1988) Psychological responses to air pollution. Journal of Environmental Psychology 8:191208 Zezima K (2005) All is recycled, except for the graduates. New York Times, June 4, p. 12

123