Recycling Promotion Strategies: Statistical and Fuzzy‐Set Comparisons
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 117, Issue 4
Abstract
This research evaluates 10 methods of promoting residential curbside recycling programs (RCRPs) using data from a survey of RCRPs in the United States. Statistical and fuzzy‐set methods are used to analyze the promotions as evaluated by recycling coordinators. The 10 promotions considered range from personal communication to radio advertisements. Mailed fliers, newspaper advertisements, school education, and hand‐delivered fliers were the most commonly used promotions. Statistical comparisons of recycling coordinator responses suggest that personal communication is evaluated, on average, higher than all other promotions. Mean evaluations for hand‐delivered and mailed fliers, and reminder signs are also high. School education, television advertisements, enclosures in city billings, and newspaper advertisements, though considered somewhat effective, are less effective than all promotions except exhibits at fairs and radio advertisements. Fuzzy‐set mathematics are used to assign linguistic variables to promotion‐evaluation possibility distributions. Linguistic variables retain more information than evaluation means. Whereas identical means can be produced by very different distributions, linguistic variables reflect evaluation‐possibility distribution dispersion as well as central tendency. Several possible areas of future study in this area are introduced.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Anandalingam, G., and Westfall, M. (1989). “Selection of hazardous waste disposal alternative using multi‐attribute utility theory and fuzzy set analysis.” J. Envir. Systems, 18(1), 69–85.
2.
Baffaut, C., and Chameau, J. (1990). “Estimation of pollutant loads with fuzzy sets.” Civ. Engrg. Systems, 7(1), 51–61.
3.
Bethea, R., Duran, B., and Boullion, T. (1985). Statistical methods for engineers and scientist. Marcel Dekke, Inc., New York, N.Y.
4.
Bloom, P. N., and Novelli, W. D. (1981). “Problems and challenges in social marketing.” J. of Marketing, 45, 79–88.
5.
Chameau, J., Altescaeffe, A., Michael, H., and Yao, J. (1983). “Potential applications of fuzzy sets in civil engineering.” Int. J. of Man‐Machine Studies, 19, 9–18.
6.
Couch, J. T., Garber, T., and Karpus, L. (1979). “Response maintenance and paper recycling.” J. of Envir. Systems, 8(2), 127–137.
7.
Crump, E. (1990). “The use of fuzzy sets in optimizing the selection of land for wastewater sludge application,” thesis presented to Duke University, at Durham, N.C., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
8.
De Young, R. (1984). “Motivating people to recycle: The use of incentives.” Resour. Recovery, 3(2), 14–15, 42.
9.
De Young, R. (1990). “Recycling as appropriate behavior: A review of survey data from selected recycling education programs in Michigan.” Resour., Conservation and Recycling, 3, 253–266.
10.
Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
11.
“Disposal crisis coming? State‐by‐state answers.” (1987). Waste Age, 18(1), 57–64.
12.
Dunlap, R., and Van Liere, K. (1978). “The ‘new environmental paradigm’: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results.” J. Envir. Education, 9, 10–19.
13.
Foran, B. (1987). 1986‐87 Oregon/California residential curbside recycling survey report. Lane County Waste Management Division, Eugene, Ore.
14.
Geller, E. (1989). “Applied behavior analysis and social marketing: An integration of environmental preservation.” J. Social Issues, 45(1), 17–36.
15.
Geller, E., Chaffe, J., Ingram, R. (1975). “Promoting paper—recycling on a university campus.” J. of Envir. Systems, 5(1), 39–57.
16.
Glenn, J. (1990). “The state of garbage in America.” Biocycle, 31(3), 34–41.
17.
Gunaratne, M., Chameau, J., and Altschaeffl, A. (1985). “Fuzzy multi‐attribute decision making in pavement management.” Civ. Engrg. Systems, 2, 166–170.
18.
Guttentag, R., Pytlar, T., and Kutchukian, N. (1987). “Using public opinion surveys to design recycling programs.” Resour. Recycling, 6(5), 30–31, 36.
19.
Hageman, K. (1989). “How to make a good recycling program better.” Biocycle, 30(4), 62–64.
20.
Hamad, C., Cooper, D., and Semb, G. (1977). “Resource recovery: The use of a contingency to increase paper recycling in our elementary school.” J. Appl. Psychology, 62, 768–772.
21.
Jacobs, H., Bailey, J., and Crews, J. (1984). “Development and analysis of a community based resource recovery program.” J. Appl. Behavioral Analysis, 17(2), 127–145.
22.
Joosten, J. (1980). “Sorting at the source.” Resour. Recovery and Conservation, 5(1), 15–19.
23.
Kandel, A. (1986). Fuzzy mathematical techniques with applications. Addison‐Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.
24.
Long, L. (1989). “How to get results in residential recycling.” Biocycle, 30(8), 76–77.
25.
Lund, J. (1990). “Least‐cost scheduling of solid waste recycling.” J. Envir. Engrg., 116(1), 182–197.
26.
Luyben, P., Cummings, S. (1982). “Motivating beverage container recycling on a college campus.” J. Envir. Systems, 11(3), 235–245.
27.
McCarthy, E. (1987). Basic marketing: A managerial approach. Richard Irwin Inc., Homewood, Ill.
28.
McGuiness, J., Jones, A., and Cole, S. (1979). “Attitudinal correlates of recycling behavior.” J. Appl. Psychology, 62(4), 376–384.
29.
McGuire, R. (1984). “Recycling: Great expectations and garbage outcomes.” American Behavioral Sci., 28(1), 93–114.
30.
Mersky, R. (1988). “Behavior and opinion concerning a mandatory newspaper recycling programme: A statistical correlation analysis.” Waste Management and Res., 6(4), 339–351.
31.
Munro, J. (1984). “Fuzzy programming and imprecise data.” Civ. Engrg. Systems, 1, 225–260.
32.
Murphy, S., and Sinha, K. (1990). “A fuzzy set approach for bridge traffic safety evaluation.” Civ. Engrg. Systems, 7(1), 36–43.
33.
The National Recycling Coalition measurement standards and reporting guidelines, draft. (1989). National Recycling Coalition, Washington, D.C.
34.
Nielson, J., and Ellington, B. (1983). “Social processes and resource conservation: A case study in low technology recycling.” Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives, N. Feimer and E. Geller, eds., Praeger, New York, N.Y.
35.
Oliver, P. (1990). “Modeling the second‐order problem is not easy: A comment on Heckathorn.” Rationality and Society, 2(1), 118–122.
36.
Peluso, R., and Rucker, E., III (1987). “Curbside recycling: The why and the how.” Waste Age Annual Waste to Energy Supplement. Recycling, 18(Sept.), 40–41.
37.
Promoting source reduction and recyclability in the market place. (1989). EPA 530‐SW‐89‐066, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
38.
Public attitudes towards garbage disposal. (1990). National Solid Wastes Management Association, Washington, D.C.
39.
Schmucker, K. (1984). Fuzzy sets, natural language computations, and risk analysis. Computer Science Press, Rockville, Md.
40.
Smithson, M. (1987). Fuzzy set analysis for behavioral and social sciences. Springer‐Verlag, New York, N.Y.
41.
Spaccarelli, S., Zolik, E., and Jason, L. (1990). “Effects of verbal prompting and block characteristics on participation in curbside newspaper recycling.” J. Envir. Systems, 19(1), 45–57.
42.
Taylor, P. (1986). “Barriers to curbside recycling.” Biocycle, 27(2), 48–49.
43.
Tillock, H., and Morrison, D. (1979). “Group size and contributions to collective action: An examination of Olson's theory using data from Zero Population Growth, Inc.” Research and social movements, conflicts and change, Vol. 2, Louis Kriesburg, ed., Jai Press Inc., Greenwich, Conn.
44.
Vining, J., and Ebreo, A. (1990). “What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers.” Envir. and Behavior, 22(1), 55–73.
45.
Walsh, P., and O'Leary, P. (1988). “Recycling offers benefits, opportunities… and challenges.” Waste Age, 19(1), 54–60.
46.
Walsh, P., and O'Leary, P. (1988). “How to plan a community recycling program.” Waste Age, 19(4), 166–170.
47.
Witmer, J., and Geller, E. (1976). “Facilitating paper recycling: Effects of prompts, raffles and contests.” J. Appl. Behavioral Analysis, 9(3), 315–322.
48.
Zadeh, L. (1965). “Fuzzy sets.” Information and control., 8, 338–353.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 117 • Issue 4 • December 1991
Pages: 154 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 ASCE.
History
Published online: Dec 1, 1991
Published in print: Dec 1991
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.