Waste Management Perceptions
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Michaela Barnett, University of Virginia
Version: View help for Version V1
Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
---|---|---|---|
WasteMgmtPercep_Study2_Data_Codesheet.xlsx | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet | 242.1 KB | 09/30/2022 09:02:AM |
Project Citation:
Barnett, Michaela. Waste Management Perceptions. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2023-03-14. https://doi.org/10.3886/E181063V1
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
We explore public perceptions of effective waste management strategies in the United States. Across several measures, a significant majority of participants erroneously consider recycling to be the most effective option. However, this misplaced preference for recycling is not static. The number of participants who preferred source reduction increased when fewer choice options were presented and when actions were framed socially instead of individually. For some measures, participants understand that preventing waste is better generally—but misperceive recycling as the best action that they can undertake as individuals. For consumers and producers alike, policies and other interventions should promote source reduction and reuse, which may also help correct the misplaced preference for recycling.
Funding Sources:
View help for Funding Sources
University of Virginia's Convergent Behavioral Science Initiative and Indiana University’s Prepared for Environmental Change Grand Challenge initiative
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
perceptions;
consumption;
recycling bias;
waste management
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
United States
Time Period(s):
View help for Time Period(s)
3/24/2022 – 3/26/2022 (March 2022)
Collection Date(s):
View help for Collection Date(s)
3/24/2022 – 3/26/2022 (March 2022)
Universe:
View help for Universe
representative sample based on simplified U.S. census data and balanced on sex, age, and ethnicity of adults on Prolific.
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
survey data
Methodology
Sampling:
View help for Sampling
Representative sample of U.S. adults balanced on sex, age, and ethnicity. Participants from Prolific.
Data Source:
View help for Data Source
Prolific.
Collection Mode(s):
View help for Collection Mode(s)
web-based survey
Scales:
View help for Scales
Participants first responded to standard demographic questions. Participants were then told: “Household waste can cause many environmental problems” and asked an open-ended question about the most effective thing they could do to help solve this problem.
Next, participants were presented with the four waste management strategies present in the U.S. EPA’s waste management hierarchy and asked to rank the choices in order of 1 (best for the environment) to 4 (worst for the environment). Participants then completed the same ranking task for the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) and indicated the frequency with which they do each action.
Participants were then asked to sort common products into virtually represented recycling, compost, and trash bins and indicate how certain they were about their choice. Participants also rated their certainty about whether items they place in recycling bins actually get recycled). Participants were then asked to choose between recycling waste and preventing waste in terms of environmental efficacy, which they did more frequently, and which was easier.
We then presented participants with two systems thinking questions. Participants were told “Household waste can cause many environmental problems. There is a long process for products that eventually become waste, beginning with resource extraction and ending with disposal.” Alongside this description was a graphic depicting these different stages. Participants were asked at which stage they thought efforts should focus in general and which stage they thought they could have the most impact.
Participants then responded to hypothetical scenarios regarding their consumption and disposal behaviors and a reduced consumption measure (Helm et al., 2019) and materialism measure (Helm et al., 2019) as well as a series of questions about recycling heuristics.
Next, participants were presented with the four waste management strategies present in the U.S. EPA’s waste management hierarchy and asked to rank the choices in order of 1 (best for the environment) to 4 (worst for the environment). Participants then completed the same ranking task for the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) and indicated the frequency with which they do each action.
Participants were then asked to sort common products into virtually represented recycling, compost, and trash bins and indicate how certain they were about their choice. Participants also rated their certainty about whether items they place in recycling bins actually get recycled). Participants were then asked to choose between recycling waste and preventing waste in terms of environmental efficacy, which they did more frequently, and which was easier.
We then presented participants with two systems thinking questions. Participants were told “Household waste can cause many environmental problems. There is a long process for products that eventually become waste, beginning with resource extraction and ending with disposal.” Alongside this description was a graphic depicting these different stages. Participants were asked at which stage they thought efforts should focus in general and which stage they thought they could have the most impact.
Participants then responded to hypothetical scenarios regarding their consumption and disposal behaviors and a reduced consumption measure (Helm et al., 2019) and materialism measure (Helm et al., 2019) as well as a series of questions about recycling heuristics.
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
individual participants
Geographic Unit:
View help for Geographic Unit
United States
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.