The road to the landfill is paved with good intentions – Why accepting more materials in the recycling bin may decrease recycling participation

When looking at recent legislative announcements to expand and standardize the list of recyclable materials in Ontario, New York and other jurisdictions across North America, I am reminded of the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

This decision is largely in response to the growing complexity of modern recycling systems and product packaging – consumers often struggle identifying what materials can actually be recycled, in addition to where it can be recycled (due to a lack of program harmonization from area to area). By allowing consumers to put *all* packaging like materials in their recycling bins, the intent is to make recycling as convenient as possible for households, thereby encouraging participation (convenience is often the most significant predictor of recycling participation). Sounds like a good idea, right? Not quite – to better understand why this may not be the case, it’s important to understand why people recycle in the first place.

To do this, we use the theory of planned behavior, which provides a framework for systematically investigating the factors which influence behavioral choices. ?Originally conceptualized as an extension of the theory of reasoned action and theory of self-efficacy, the theory of planned behavior states that an individual’s intentions and behaviors are a function of attitudes towards a given behavior, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control.

Figure 1?illustrates the connections between behavior and behavioral antecedents as described by the TPB model.

?(Adapted from Ajzen, 1985)

Table 1 below describes each of the components of the TPB model in detail.

Table 1: Components of the TPB model (Adapted from Ajzen, 1985)

???????With specific regards to recycling, the TPB provides a useful framework for identifying the factors which influence recycling decisions. The decision to recycle is likely to be complex, as recycling is a behavior that involves considerable effort on the part of the consumer. While all of this may sound unnecessarily complicated, it is perhaps easiest to think of recycling behavior as being mediated by the following:

1)?????What are my attitudes towards recycling, sustainability and the environment in general? Do I think recycling is a good thing, or a waste of time? Do I know what the impacts of recycling are (positive/negative)?

2)?????Normative Influences/Subjectives Norms: Am I expected to recycle (morally/legally)? Will my family/friends/community judge me if I didn’t recycle? Will I be punished for not recycling?

3)?????Perceived Behavioral Control: How easy is it for me to recycle? Do I face any barriers (physical/infrastructural) from engaging in recycling? Do I know where to recycle? Do I think that recycling makes a difference in achieving a desired outcome (i.e. resource conservation, reduced litter etc.)?

The decision to engage in the act of recycling is a function of the aforementioned behavioral antecedents – all three elements of the TPB model (attitudes/normative influence/perceived behavioral control), must exist in order to achieve a sustained change in desired behavior (in this case, recycling). With this in mind, it’s evident why policy makers expanding the list of accepted recyclable materials would be seen as a way to encourage recycling among households. The easier you make the activity, the more likely people are to participate. As noted earlier, the complexity of modern packaging can be confusing for consumers regarding what should be done with it at its end of life . By expanding and standardizing “what goes in the bin”, that uncertainty is reduced, thereby encouraging recycling behavior. However, this outcome is predicated on people actually believing that what they put in the bin is going to be recycled – uncertainty surrounding the outcome of a given action can actually deter recycling behavior. In some instances, “uncertainty of outcome” can actually result in negative attitudes towards the activity, and may be sufficient to deter participating in the behavior all together.

Why this issue is of particular concern, is that the decision to expand the list of accepted recyclable materials includes materials that we know cannot be recycled in existing recycling systems. As an example, proposed EPR legislation in New York State obligates materials and products that includes any part of a package or container, regardless of recyclability or compostability (that includes material that is used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery, & presentation of goods that are sold, offered for sale, or distributed to consumers). Ontario’s new EPR regulation expands the list of acceptable Blue Box materials to include “packaging-like products” and certain single-use items (including compostable packaging, which is intended to be part of the organics stream). Essentially, in a bid to make recycling more convenient for consumers (thereby encouraging participation), policy makers are deliberately allowing non-recyclable materials to be included in the recycling bin. There are a number of issues with this approach (namely increased contamination, collection and processing costs etc.), but for our purposes, I want to focus specifically on how allowing households to “put it all in the bin”, may ultimately backfire and discourage recycling behavior.

Lack of trust between households, municipalities and producers

In one of the first focus groups I had ever conducted, I was taken aback by just how many people didn’t believe that the material they put in the recycling bin was actually being recycled. Not only were participants skeptical with respect to what was happening to their waste, many expressed a distrust of municipalities and whether they were telling the truth about what was going to the landfill. When I revisited the topic last year (conducting a survey examining household waste management behavior post COVID) more than 51% percent of respondents expressed doubt that waste was actually being diverted (recycled/composted/reused etc.) from landfills. 42% of respondents disagreed (or strongly disagreed) with the statement “The municipality recycles what I put in the recycling bin”. An enduring theme across both the past focus group sessions and in our most recent surveys, is that there was a distinct lack of trust on the part of respondents, who did not believe that the municipality (or service provider) was being truthful with respect to what they say is happening to their waste. While the survey examined multiple waste streams, commonly occurring concerns that were expressed during the open ended section of the survey include:?“We aren’t really recycling the stuff I put in the recycling bin” “I read that only 9% of plastics are recycled” “It all ends up going to the landfill” “I heard that we ship our waste to the 3rd world” etc.

While it is difficult to specifically isolate what is driving these concerns and the general lack of trust, it appears that incidents that are highly visible and garner significant media attention, i.e. “60 shipping containers of household waste rejected and sent back to Canada”, “CBC National news story on exporting textile waste to developing economies” generate considerable uncertainty and skepticism among the public. These incidents often become the focal point for public ire and undermine trust between waste service providers and the public. Further compounding the problem is that how waste is managed and by whom varies radically across jurisdictions, making it difficult to address/dispute allegations of improper disposal of waste. It is truly a situation where “One bad apple spoils the bunch” – what could be an isolated incident of recyclables being improperly managed and landfilled, results in doubt being cast about how all waste is being managed. The last point is of particular importance, as households attitudes towards waste are not differentiated by waste stream – a story about waste electronics not being recycled can lead people to believe that all waste is not being recycled.

Circling back to our discussion surrounding expanding the list of accepted recyclable materials, we have a situation where we are asking consumers to put things in the recycling bin that policy makers know can’t be recycled – the question is, do households know? Generally speaking, despite the skepticism expressed by households regarding whether packaging waste is actually being recycled, households do not readily differentiate between which materials are going to be recycled, and which won’t (hence the decision to make it as easy as possible by expanding the list of acceptable materials). However, in an effort to make recycling convenient for consumers, do we run the risk of undermining enduring changes in recycling behavior?

Ignorance is not bliss

There are two potential issues that arise when we consider the indirect impacts of expanding the list of recyclable materials – 1) Lack of awareness and personal responsibility/accountability, and 2) Undermining perceived behavioral control and whether one’s actions lead to a desired outcome.

Lack of awareness and personal responsibility/accountability

While simplifying recycling may make the act of recycling more convenient, it does little to increase awareness regarding what can/should be recycled, and why we should be recycling in the first place. While policy makers often think that the link between recycling and sustainability is apparent, there is an significant body of literature that suggests that this isn’t necessarily the case. This is particularly true of ethnic minorities and new Canadians, who often do not fully understand how recycling contributes to broader environmentally beneficial objectives such as resource conservation, reduced waste, and circularity. In one of the first studies I ever published on the relationship between race/ethnicity and recycling behavior, I found that more than 60% of first generation immigrants in the Greater Toronto Area did not recognize the Mobius loop, or its symbolic significance to recycling. The three arrows that have been a fixture of recycling promotion and education materials for decades in North America and Europe, was not the universal symbol of recycling that many people (including myself) thought it was. This finding, in part, is explained by a lack of participation in recycling initiatives in an individual’s country of origin. Many people come from countries where there is no formal recycling program. In some instances, recycling is actually seen as an “undesirable” activity, as it is most often associated with informal waste picking (which is heavily stigmatized in certain cultures).

One of my favorite anecdotes that helps illustrates this point ?involves my late father – He ?was a professor of environmental science at the University of Windsor for more than 30 years, and was widely regarded as an expert on resource management (publishing several textbooks, and dozens of papers on the topic). Yet, he did not recycle in his personal life – he often characterized it as a waste of time and inconvenient, and would reference that recycling was not an activity that people would partake in “back home” (Guyana). In this particular instance, a lack of awareness was not the primary issue, but rather, it was a lack of habituation. The “habit” of recycling was never established, which ultimately discouraged recycling behavior once moving to Canada.

With this in mind, we start to see how the “kitchen sink” model of recycling (put it all in the bin) can actually subvert our goal of increasing household awareness and participation in recycling. In many ways, we are reducing an individual’s agency to educate and inform themselves about what can be recycled, and what can’t. This is particularly problematic in urban areas such as the Greater Toronto Area, where more than 50% of residents are born outside of the country. These are the groups that we most want to target when it comes to fostering awareness and encouraging them to be environmentally conscionable citizens. Cultivating awareness and establishing a clear link between recycling and sustainability is the key to *sustained* behavioral change. While allowing households to put all packaging like materials (irrespective of their recyclability) in the recycling bin will lead to an increase in short term participation, ?it does little to ensure that recycling behavior and increased awareness will persist over time . There is also a missed opportunity to achieve synergy with other pro-environmental behaviors – households who recycle due to altruistic intentions (i.e. recycling is good for the environment) are also more inclined to participate in other desired behaviors such as litter prevention, waste reduction and reuse. Arguably, it would be more beneficial for municipalities to focus on educating households about the importance of recycling, than making the act of recycling more convenient by expanding the list of allowable materials.

?With that being said, there is a fine balance between encouraging convenience and awareness – both elements are required to achieve a truly sustainable outcome. As noted in the TPB model, behavior is ultimately mediated by perceived behavioral control. Even in instances where attitudes towards recycling are positive and levels of awareness are high, people are only inclined to participate if it is convenient for them to do so.

Undermining perceived behavioral control and whether one’s actions lead to a desired outcome

As noted in the TPB model, perceived behavioral control is not based solely on convenience – while it is a critical antecedent to recycling behavior, people need to feel as though their actions are contributing to a desired outcome (Does what I do really matter?).

This is where a significant risk exists with respect to expanding the list of accepted recyclable materials to include non-recyclable/difficult to recycle packaging. If the public were to catch wind of this, there is a strong likelihood that it will exacerbate existing skepticism and mistrust surrounding what is actually happening to their waste. To make matters worse, there is a risk of households experiencing “Cognitive Dissonance”, which in the context of recycling, is a phenomenon where attitudes towards recycling become negative as a result of uncertainty regarding how waste is managed, and where it ends up. As a result, households are discouraged from recycling, and may even form negative attitudes towards other diversion efforts for other waste streams (WEEE, MHSW) and activities (waste reduction and reuse). Once cognitive dissonance sets in, it is also extremely difficult to reverse. Skepticism surrounding the benefits of recycling and how waste is being managed would require significant and targeted behavioral intervention to overcome.

No simple solution?????

While well intentioned, expanding the list of accepted recyclable materials is not something that should be implemented without caution and careful consideration. Convenience is only one factor of what drives recycling behavior - favorable attitudes, normative pressures and a belief that one’s actions actually contribute to a desired outcome are all required elements when it comes to encouraging recycling. In this particular instance, there is a risk that promoting convenience may come at the expense of other behavioral antecedents, ultimately undermining our desired objective of encouraging recycling. ??

In many ways, policy makers are taking an overly simplified approach to an incredibly complex and nuanced problem. Instead of expanding the list of materials that can go in the recycling bin, policy makers should focus on solutions that communicate the “Who, What, Where, When and Why” of recycling. Households should know who is involved, what are the expectations of affected stakeholders (households, the municipality, producers etc.), what materials can actually be recycled, where should these materials go, when are households expected to recycle, and perhaps most critically, why is recycling important? Our goal should not be exclusively focused on making recycling as easy as possible for households, rather, it should be focused on making educated and informed citizens who can make decisions that are best for the environment and themselves.?