MLIBRARY
1°”?an State

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

COMMUNICATING WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND
ACCOUNTING FOR THEIR WORLDVIEWS IN PROMOTING
SUSTAINABILITY AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

presented by

Felix Kwame Yeboah

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS degree in Community, Agriculture,
Recreation and Resource
, Studies/

 

 

Q\
4;

Major’Professor’s Signature

12l18/2009

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Aoc&Pres/CIRClDateDuevindd

 

COMMUNICATING WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND ACCOUNTING FOR THEIR
WORLDVIEWS IN PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
By

Felix Kwame Yeboah

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTERS OF SCIENCE

Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2009

ABSTRACT
COMMUNICATING WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND ACCOUNTING FOR THEIR
WORLDVIEWS IN PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY
By

Felix Kwame Yeboah

This thesis is built around two essays based on data collected as part of efforts to promote
sustainability at Michigan State University [MSU]. The first essay focuses on survey
results concerning communication strategies to help develop an effective recycling
program publicity campaign for MSU. It examines the relative attractiveness and
perceived efficacy of available communication media as well as the information needs of
three stakeholder groups regarding a new recycling initiative. The results suggest that
communication efforts for promoting recycling programming should focus more on
messages concerning what, how, and where to recycle. Also, that recycling publicity
efforts should differentiate the mode and content of communications based on target
audience. The second essay seeks to better understand the appropriateness of a
dichotomous answer choice format for ‘environmental/economic worldview’ questions.
Data from the campus-wide survey are used to investigate the efficacy of alternative
answer choice sets for a worldview question and examine the relationship between
participants’ stated worldview and their level of support for environmental initiatives.
The results suggest that most respondents do not view economic growth and
environmental protection as being mutually exclusive. Thus, worldview question formats
that force respondents to choose between these two worldview categories appear to

misstate individuals’ underlying worldviews and may increase item non-response

DEDICATIONS
I would like to dedicate this work to my family in Ghana for always believing in me and
for enduring long periods of my absence to enable me pursue my academic goals. I also

thank God for his protection and uncommon favor throughout my life.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First, I am especially indebted to my faculty advisor, Dr. Michael Kaplowitz for the
research assistantship opportunity and for guiding me through the process of academic
writing. Without his support and encouragement, this thesis would not be near the
quality it is. I would also like to thank my guidance committee members, Dr. Laurie
Thorp and Dr. Frank Lupi, whose support and constructive comments considerably

improved the quality of this research. Any mistakes or weaknesses are my own.

Along with that, I must express my sincere gratitude to the Office of the Vice President
of Finance and Operations for the funding that made this project possible. To my
colleagues, Aimee Wilson, Eric Bailey and all who contributed in diverse ways to make

my life here comfortable, I say a big thank you.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2- ESSAY ONE ........................................................................ 15
CHAPTER 3- ESSAY TWO ....................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 4 — CONCLUSION ................................................................... 91
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 97

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Response Rates ........................................................................

Table 2.2: Mean ratings on self reported level of knowledge of recycling

knowledge Items
Table 2.3: Mean ratings on respondents’ willingness to receive information. . . ..
Table 2.4: Mean ratings of perceived effectiveness of publicity options... ... . .. ......

Table 3.1: Worldview Item Non-Response...........................................................

Table 3.2: Results for respondents’ environmental protection index regressed on
worldviews, perceived efficacy, receptivity to information, satisfaction with current

initiatives, and environmental knowledge ......................................................

vi

..34

.36

.39

.41

76

..79

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: European and World Value Survey Question BOO8 ............................... 58
Figure 3.2: ‘Standard” Question-Dichotomous Answer Choices ............................. 67
Figure 3.3: “Alternative” Question-Three-Answer Choices ................................... 67
Figure 3.4: Response Distribution by Response Treatment .............................. ...77

vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Overview

With increasing environmental challenges threatening the life of our planet, various
institutions and communities of all sizes are exploring different strategies to reduce the
ecological footprints of modern lifestyles. Among the strategies that are advocated is the
promotion of lifestyle changes and increasing pro-environmental behavior. In efforts to
promote this behavioral Shift, academic literature seems to emphasize increasing
environmental awareness among the general public through educational campaigns. It is
believed that, an effective educational program can promote general awareness, support,
and ownership of sustainability, and, in turn, will encourage the public to adjust their

habits and lifestyle towards environmentally benign behavior (Dahle & Neumayer, 2001).

But more than mere general educational campaigns seem necessary. Individuals’ values
and worldviews are also believed to provide means to influence human behavior.
Behavioral scientists suggest that pro-environmental behavior may originate from
people’s values and their worldviews especially those regarding their relationship with
the natural environment (Petersen, Shunturov, Janda, Platt, & Weinberger, 2007;
Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004; Schwartz, 1994; Stem, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof,
1999). Therefore, it seems important to develop an accurate understanding of people’s
. values and worldviews to help inform the formulation of environmental policies (and

education campaigns) aimed at promoting behavioral change. This thesis examines and

reports results pertinent to approaches helpful in promoting and implementing pro-

environmental behavior.

Chapter Two reports the findings of a study on alternative communication strategies for a
new campus-wide recycling program. As part of a research and planning effort centered
on increasing campus environmental stewardship and sustainability, research was
undertaken to help identify communication strategies and develop an effective publicity
campaign for the new recycling program. The chapter examines the relative attractiveness
and perceived efficacy of available communication media as well as the information
needs of three segments of stakeholders — students, staff, and faculty - as they pertain to a
proposed new recycling initiative. Chapter Three presents a report on a related study
concerning accurate measure and understanding of individuals’ environmental
worldviews. That is, the reported research is part of an effort to help develop sound pro-
environmental behavioral change efforts that may be based on accurate understanding of
participants’ worldviews; whether and to what extent potential program participants
perceive environmental protection and economic growth as being of paramount
importance. Specifically, Chapter Three investigates the efficacy of a widely used
dichotomous response choice question on worldviews; whether asking respondents if
policy should favor environmental protection or economic growth accurately capture
individuals’ worldviews regarding the environment/economy relation. Chapter Three also
examines the potential implications of individual’s worldview preferences on their level
of support for environmental initiatives. The thesis concludes with discussion in Chapter

Four of the overall results of the two studies and implications of these results.

1.1 Background

Many of the environmental challenges confronting our planet are, to some extent, linked
to a direct or indirect consequence of human behavior. To this end, efforts to address
these challenges have focused on changing human habits and behavior from those that
encourage excessive resource extraction and consumption to those practices that promote
material recycling and energy conservation. To promote this behavioral shift, the
literature suggests increasing awareness of target populations about the dangers of
unsustainable practices while educating them on how to act in an environmentally benign
manner (Dahle & Neumayer, 2001; Spellerberg, Buchan, & Englefield, 2004). In a study
of campus sustainability efforts, Spellerberg and his colleagues succinctly conclude,
“before sustainability can be an integral part of ‘how we do things’, there will have to be
considerable effort to draw staff and student attention to the implications of unsustainable
practices” (2004, 131). Clearly, raising awareness of target audiences is accepted as an

essential ingredient of any effort to change behavior.

For solid waste recycling, the success of any program depends, in part, on growing and
sustaining the participation of waste generators in proper material separation and disposal
of recyclable waste (Folz, 1991). Previous research indicates that recycling behavior can
be increased by improving convenience of recycling, increasing target audiences’
knowledge about program characteristics and .providing participants with adequate
recycling opportunities (Kelly, Mason, Leiss, & S., 2006; Ludwig, Gray, & Rowell,

1998; McCarty & Shrum, 1994; McDonald & Oates, 2003). While challenges related to

convenience and recycling opportunities could be reduced by improving the amount and
locations of recycling bins, increasing knowledge is rather complex. To say the least,
some level of an awareness campaign and education is required to influence knowledge.
It thus seems imperative that effective publicity and promotions about recycling program
characteristics should accompany the implementation of any recycling program.
Informing potential participants about recycling program task requirements as well as
communicating the value and benefits of recycling to potential participants has been
generally accepted as critical aspects of sustaining recycling program participation (Dahle
& Neumayer, 2001; F012, 1999; Iyer & Kashyap, 2007; Scott, 1999; Thomas, 2001).
While recycling knowledge may not be a sole determinant of recycling behavior,
researchers point out its vital role in predicting recycling participation. Individual’s
knowledge on how, where, and what to recycle as well as the benefits of recycling has
been found to correlate with their participation in recycling programs (Barr, Nicholas, &
Gilg, 2003; Kelly et al., 2006; McDonald & Oates, 2003). Consequently, De Young
(1989) advised that recycling publicity programs should communicate time and space
needs for recycling, inform people about where to go for assistance, and explain what
materials can be recycled as well as how they should be prepared. Nonetheless, target
populations may differ in their information needs regarding a particular program. Thus,
an understanding of the knowledge levels and information needs of target groups is

essential to help tailor publicity efforts to meet their specific needs.

Moreover, effective recycling information campaigns depend not only on their content

and format but also on their frequency and media used to convey the information (Iyer &

Kashyap, 2007). Several publicity media including newsletters, posters or stickers on
bins, television advertisements and personal contacts have been employed to reach out to
potential participants with varying degrees of success (Grodzinska-Jurczak, Tomal,
Tarbula-Fiertak, Nieszporek, & Read, 2006; Read, 1999). Meneses (2006) attributes
failure of some of these media to make the needed impact to Andreasen’s (1995)
observation that such publicity campaigns too often had focused on what program
implementers wanted to transmit instead of on how to adjust the information content and
media to the target audience’s needs. Therefore, Meneses (2006) emphasized the need for
program implementers to gain a more detailed understanding of the characteristics,
learning processes, values, and recycling knowledge levels of audiences before designing
education programs. It thus seems that the effectiveness of publicity campaigns could be
improved with inputs from the target audiences regarding their information needs and
preferred communication media. However, the design and tailoring of publicity
campaigns for recycling programs especially in educational institutional settings remains
largely understudied. This study attempts to bridge this gap in literature as it relates to

recycling publicity efforts in a university campus setting.

The literature also highlights the vital role of values and worldviews in shaping human
behavior. Values and worldviews are often conceived as guiding principles that influence
people towards particular actions (Petersen et al., 2007; Poortinga et al., 2004; Schwartz,
1994; Stem et al., 1999). Therefore, in efforts to garner support for recycling and other

environmental initiatives, an accurate measurement and understanding of the public’s

environmental values and worldviews is essential to formulate sound environmental

policy and strategies to promote pro-environmental behavior.

A key feature in the environmental policy formulation is the potential tension between
the goals of environmental protection and economic development. Policymakers are
often confronted with choices about how much to protect their citizens through
environmental regulations and how much to promote economic development. To help
guide policymakers and also to understand changes in the public’s environmental
concerns, researchers typically employ a dichotomous response choice question to
classify respondents as either pro-environment or pro-economic growth/job creation.
For instance, in public opinion polls in the United States, the Gallup organization often
solicits respondents’ view on the economy/environment relation by asking them to
choose one of two response options that is closest to their own worldview. These
alternative response options are: 1. Protecting the environment should be given priority
even at the risk of curbing economic growth 2. Economic growth should be given priority

even if the environment suffers to some extent (Gallup, 2009).

Although this type of dichotomous ‘worldview’ question has been widely used to inform
research and public policy, the efficacy and usefulness of results based on dichotomous
response choice formats have been questioned. Some scholars posit that forcing
individuals into one of the two policy goals prohibit them from indicating a socially
acceptable preference for both or some combination of the two goals (Lieserowitz et al.,

2005). Furthermore, findings from recent studies indicate that majority of the public view

the two policy goals as complementary rather than mutually exclusive (Hand &
Macheski, 2003; Ladd & Bowman, 1995; Su, 2007). Hence, forcing respondents to self
identify with either environmental protection or economic growth may not accurately
reflect the actual view of many who view the two goals as complementary. In line with
this argument, other scholars predict higher rates of item non-response for the
dichotomous response choice question suggesting that respondents who feel their
worldview is not accurately represented may opt out and not answer the question (Ladd
and Bowman, 1995; Dunlap and Rik, 1991). Krosnick (2002) suggests that respondents
who have some information on an issue and generally have an overall neutral orientation
towards it, when asked a question without the neutral response option might refuse to
answer because the answer he/she would like to give has not be conferred legitimacy.
Thus, in the case of the dichotomous response choice question of worldviews, it is
suggested that respondents who view the two goals as complementary will be forced to
opt out of survey. These critiques motivate a closer examination of the use of this
dichotomous response choice question as a tool for understanding public opinion on the
environment-economy relation. Chapter Three therefore examines responses of survey
participants when presented with the dichotomous response choice question and when an

additional response option (indicating a preference for both policy goals) is presented.

1.3 Objectives
The overall objective of these studies was to develop an understanding of the university
communities’ knowledge, attitudes and behavior towards recycling and their worldview

regarding the relationship between the policy goals of economic growth and

environmental protection. The immediate goal of this research was to help university
administrators design and implement a new recycling program that will meet the needs of
various segments of the university population as well as promote increased participation.

The reported research set out to answer the following two sets of research queries:

1. What should be the focus (content) of recycling communication for the various
segments of a university population?

2. What is the most effective medium (approach) for communicating recycling and
recycling program attributes to the various constituencies of the university
community?

3. What communication strategies should be adopted to effectively convey recycling

information to the various segments of the university community?

And
4. How do the distributions for the responses “economic growth” and.“environmental
protection” of the standard dichotomous choice worldview question compare with
the responses to an economic growth and environmental protection worldview
question that includes a response category indicating preference for both policy
goals?
5. Does presenting the environmental protection-economic growth worldview question

as a dichotomous choice question impact item non-response?

6. Do people’s views of the goals of environmental protection and economic growth
have implications on the level of their support for environmental protection

initiatives?

1.4 Background on Sustainability Efforts at MSU

Like many institutions of higher learning around the world, Michigan State University
(MSU) is striving to reduce its overall ecological footprint by incorporating sustainability
measures in its academic, research and operational activities. Sustainability efforts at
MSU easily date back to the spring of 1998 as a result of grassroots efforts of some
faculty, staff and students. That initial group, the University Committee for a Sustainable
Campus (UCSC), proposed a campus environmental assessment plan to the MSU
Academic Council. This step eventually influenced the decision for a campus-wide
environmental stewardship initiative to be part of the MSU President’s Boldness by
Design initiative. Since then there has been the creation of an office for Campus
Sustainability as well as a research-management sustainability initiative overseen by the
MSU Vice President of Finance and Operations to promote research and improved
operations involving sustainability initiatives on campus. To reinforce its commitment to
sustainability, MSU joined the Chicago Climate Exchange in 2006 with a commitment to
reduce its annual greenhouse gas emission by at least 15% by 2015 from the 2000

baseline.

The environmental stewardship initiative, among other things, aims to increase the

efficiency of the university’s material and energy usage and minimize the campus’

overall ecological footprint. Under the guidance of the Vice President of Finance and
Operation, the initiative uses teams of faculty, staff and students in a systems approach to
conduct environmental research projects and implement programs. Upon the
recommendations of the Environmental Stewardship Systems Team, a $13.3 million
recycling center that meets the requirements of Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certification has been constructed to support the new improved recycling
program. Also, a variety of academic programs and research initiatives related to
sustainability have been introduced including a new sustainability specialization pending
approval by the academic governance to be launched in spring semester of 2010 (Office

of Campus Sustainability, 2009; Oswald, 2008).

AS MSU leads its efforts in campus sustainability, increased participation by all members
of the campus community will be essential. To this end, increase multi-faceted research
and planning efforts are being mobilized to inform the design and implementation of

new environmental stewardship initiatives.

1.5 Organization of the Thesis

The rest of the thesis is organized as follows: Chapter Two examines the knowledge
levels and communication preferences of students, staff and faculty of Michigan State
University regarding a new recycling program’s communication strategy. That chapter
addresses the first three research questions using data from a campus-wide web based
survey conducted from November to December 2007. The processes involved in the

survey design and administration, method of analysis and a discussion of the results from

10

the study are also presented. Chapter Three primarily addresses the second set of three
research questions. It investigates the efficacy of the dichotomous response choice
question to accurately capture the environment/economy worldview of respondents. It
also examines the effects of the dichotomous response choice question on item response
rates as well as individuals’ stated environment/economic worldview on their level of
support for environmental protection initiatives. That chapter also discusses the results
from the analysis and its relevance to efforts to environmental policy formulation.
Chapter Four concludes the thesis with a summary of the two studies, policy
implications, contribution and limitations of the study, and suggestions for future

research.

11

References

Andreasen, A. (1995). Marketing social change: Changing behavior to promote health,
social development and the environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Barr, S. F., Nicholas, J., & Gilg, A. W. (2003). Attitudes towards recycling household
waste in Exeter, Devon: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Local Environment,
8(4), 407-421.

Dahle, M., & Neumayer, E. (2001). Overcoming barriers to campus greening: A survey
among higher educational institutions in London, UK. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(2).

De Young, R. (1989). Exploring the difference between recyclers and non-recyclers: the
role of information. Journal of Environmental Systems, 18(4), 341-351.

Folz, D. H. (1991). Recycling program design, management, and participation: A
national survey of municipal experience. Public Administration Review, 51(3), 222-231.

Folz, D. H. (1999). Municipal recycling performance: A public sector environmental
success story. Public Administration Review, 86(4), 971-984.

Gallup. (2009). Public priorities: Environment vs economic growth. Retrieved October
21, 2009, from http://wwwgallupcom/poll/ 15SZOQublic-priorities-environment-vs-
economic-growthaspx

 

Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Tomal, P., Tarbula-Fiertak, M., Nieszporek, K., & Read, A. D.
(2006). Effects of an educational campaign on public environmental attitudes and
behavior in Poland Resources Conservation and Recycling, 46, 182-197.

Hand, C. M., & Macheski, G. (2003). Environment-economy trade-offs and forest
environmentalism, Electronic Green Journal (Vol. 1, pp. 1-14).

Iyer, E. S., & Kashyap, R. K. (2007). Consumer recycling: Role of incentives,
information and social class. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6, 32-47.

Kelly, T. C., Mason, 1. G., Leiss, M. W., & S., G. (2006). University community
responses to on-campus resource recycling. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 47,
42-55.

Ladd, E. C., & Bowman, K. H. (1995). Attitudes toward the environment: twenty-five

years after Earth Day. In American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (Ed.).
Washington, DC: AEI press.

12

Ludwig, T. D., Gray, T. W., & Rowell, A. (1998). Increasing recycling in academic
buildings: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(4), 683-
686.

McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: personal values,
value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as an antecedent of recycling behavior.
Journal of Business Res. 30(1), 53-62.

McDonald, 8., & Oates, C. (2003). Reasons for non-participation in a kerbside recycling
scheme. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 39, 369-385.

Meneses, G. D. (2006). How to teach recycling at advanced phase of diffusion. Journal
of Environmental Education, 37(4), 19-32.

Office of Campus Sustainability. (2009). The University Committee for a Sustainable
Campus. Retrieved August 15, 2009, 2009, from
http://www.ecofoot.msu.edu/history.htm

 

Oswald, T. (2008). MSU honored by National Wildlife Federation for sustainability
efforts. Retrieved August 15, 2009, 2009, from http://news.msu.edu/story/5634/

Petersen, J. E., Shunturov, V., Janda, K., Platt, G., & Weinberger, K. (2007). Dormitory
residents reduce electricity consumption when exposed to real-time visual feedback and
incentives. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(1), 16-33.

Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, Environmental Concern and

Environmental Behavior: A Study into Household Energy Use. Environment and
Behavior, 36(1), 70-93.

Read, A. D. (1999). A weekly doorstep recycling collection, I had no idea we could!
Overcoming the local barriers to participate. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 26,
217-249.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of
human values? in Schultz, P. W., Zelezny, L., 2003. Reframing environmental Message to
be Congruent wit American Values. Research in Ecology. 10, 126-136.

Scott, D. (1999). Equal opportunity, unequal results: determinants of household recycling
intensity,. Environment and Behavior, 31, 267-290.

Spellerberg, I. F., Buchan, G. D., & Englefield, R. (2004). Need a university adopt a

formal environmental management system? Progress without an EMS at a small
university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 5(2), 125-132.

13

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-
Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human
Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.

Su, G. L. S. (2007). Environmental worldview and concern of college students in the
Philipinnes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 39-47.

Thomas, C. (2001). Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in
Hampshire and Milton Keynes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 32(3), 259-274.

14

CHAPTER 2 - ESSAY ONE
GARNERING INPUT FOR RECYCLING COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY1

ABSTRACT

With increasing environmental challenges confronting our planet, colleges and
universities are trying different approaches for minimizing their adverse environmental
impacts. Among the approaches being used to revitalize campus sustainability efforts,
new waste management strategies have included attempts to improve campus recycling
programs. This paper presents select findings from a comprehensive study at a large, Tier
I university aimed at, among other things, informing university administration and
decision makers working on the planning and implementation of a new campus-wide
recycling facility and program. The researchers used a mixed-method approach to help
them develop an understanding of the campus community’s 1) perceived barriers to
recycling, 2) recycling knowledge, 3) program preferences, and 4) environmental
attitudes. The results from a web-based survey (n=3896, RR1=24.9%) suggest, among
other things, that communication efforts for recycling programming should focus more
on messages concerning what, how, and where to recycle rather than messages on why to
recycle. Furthermore, the results suggest that recycling-related publicity approaches

Should differentiate their mode and content for different segments of the community.

 

1 This essay has been previously published as: Kaplowitz, M.D., F.K. Yeboah, L. Thorp,
and A. Wilson. 2009. “Gamering Input for Recycling Communication Strategies at a Big
Ten University.” Resources, Conservation, and Recycling. Revision. 53(11):612-623.

15

1. INTRODUCTION

Faced with increasing environmental challenges such as non-point source pollution,
global climate change, and waste management problems, policymakers, managers, and
communities of all sizes are trying different approaches to becoming more
environmentally sustainable. For example, water pollution regulation and watershed
protection measures of the US. Clean Water Act now require ‘small municipalities,’
including universities and colleges to develop and implement storm water management
plans. Colleges and universities, like small municipalities, often encompass large areas of
land and diverse populations who must change their behavior in order to achieve natural
resource management and environmental protection goals. Furthermore, colleges and
universities are typically engaged in complex scientific, social, and educational activities
with considerable material consumption and energy usage. As a result, universities may
be viewed as communities with significant direct and indirect impacts on the environment
(Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008). Likewise, they may be seen as important actors
through research, outreach, and example settings in helping find solutions to challenges

that threaten human existence and our planet.

Colleges and universities may be well suited to take the lead on environmental protection
and sustainability practices. By promoting sustainability on campus, universities and
colleges may teach and demonstrate principles of awareness and stewardship of the
natural world and increase societies’environmental sustainability (Pike et al., 2003). In
fact, academic institutions worldwide have been engaged in promoting environmental

sustainability for quite some time. Beginning in 1972, with the Stockholm Declaration

l6

(UNESCO, 1972), institutions of higher education have attempted to become more
sustainable and have entered into international environmental sustainability agreements.
In addition to such international and national declarations such as the Tallories
Declaration (UNESCO, 1990), many academic institutions have taken “a micro approach
to sustainability in higher education by creating institutional environmental policies that
are meaningful for their particular situation” (Wright, 2002). For example, colleges and
universities have tried to increase recycling on campus as a waste management strategy

linked to campus sustainability efforts (Pike etal., 2003; Barlett and Chase, 2004).

In 2006, the Michigan State University Vice President for Finance and Operations
[VPFO] launched the Be Spartan Green Environmental Stewardship Initiative with the
goal of simultaneously reducing the university’s environmental footprint while increasing
the efficiency of material and energy usage. As part of this campus initiative, an
improved recycling program was designed, built, and implemented. Consequently, a large
multi-faceted research and planning effort was mobilized to inform the design and
implementation of the new recycling program. This paper is based on a campus-wide
survey that resulted from the VPFO’S integrated research and planning efforts.
Specifically, this paper examines alternative communication approaches for informing
campus constituencies of a large Midwestern (U.S.) Tier I public university about a new
and expanded campus recycling program. Other results from the campus-wide research

and planning initiative may be found elsewhere (Gebben, 2008; Hansen et al., 2008).

17

Researchers report the vital role of information and educational efforts in influencing
knowledge about recycling, recycling attitudes, and recycling behavior (Barr et al., 2003;
Iyer and Kashyap, 2007). However, the design and tailoring of recycling educational and
communication campaigns especially in university settings remain largely understudied.
A few studies on recycling information/education campaigns provide suggestions on the
format and content of such campaigns to make them effective (Warner et al., 2002). For
example, De Young (1989) suggests that recycling education programs should
communicate time and space needs for recycling, inform people about where to go for
assistance, and explain what materials can be recycled as well as how they Should be
prepared. However, the success of recycling information campaigns depend not only on
their content and format but also on their frequency and mode of communication (media
used to convey information) (Iyer and Kashyap, 2007). A variety of media have been
reportedly used to communicate recycling program characteristics. Too often, it seems
that the selected media have been chosen based on project budgets and preferences of
program implementers instead of efficacy or the preferences of the target population(s).
Understanding recycling program stakeholders’ preferences and perceived effectiveness
of potential publicity media should enable program implementers to design and tailor

educational programming to be most effective.

This paper uses the results of a campus-wide survey that was sent to one-third of a Tier 1
university’s students, staff, and faculty (N=15,652) in an effort to, among other things,
better understand how the campus constituencies understand campus recycling and help

devise communication strategies for a new recycling initiative. This effort also sought to

18

measure and understand respondents’ level of knowledge of how and where to recycle on
campus, environmental benefits associated with recycling, and alternative waste
reduction strategies on campus. Also, the study examined respondents’ willingness to
learn more about recycling benefits and how to recycle properly. After briefly discussing
previous work concerning recycling programs at educational institutions, the role of
recycling knowledge and behavior, and alternative recycling program information
approaches, this paper presents the research methods used to collect data from three
constituencies of the campus community. Following that, the paper presents the results of

the study before concluding with a discussion of the implications of these findings.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Recycling at Educational Institutions

A number of studies have chronicled experiences of some institutions of higher education
that have institutionalized recycling programs as part of their campus waste management
strategies (Keniry, 1995; Mason et al., 2003; Barlett and Chase, 2004). It appears that the
most successful of these programs ofien share a combination of institutional measures
including: 1) positive executive (administrative) support, 2) written environmental
policies, 3) provision of resources and incentives, 4) creation of a framework for
planning, 5) incorporation of environmental responsibility into the curriculum, 6)
environmental research activities, 7) campus ecological planning and design, 8)
measurable reductions of costs and wastes, 9) good public relations and documentation,
10) financial accountability, and 11) provision of leadership development and training

(Keniry, 1995). Literature suggests that many campus recycling programs have been

19

driven by students’ environmental activism and advocacy to make their campuses
“green.” For instance, student concern for a lack of on-campus recycling facilities led to
the implementation of a zero waste program at Massey University, New Zealand (Mason
et al., 2003). Given such a widely-held belief in the crucial role of students in recycling
program success, many previous studies of campus recycling programs have focused on
the effect of interventions such as rewards, goal setting, feedback, information and
education on promoting recycling behavior among students (Geller et al., 1975; Luyben
and Cummings, 1981; McCaul and Kopp, 1982; Goldenhar and Connel, 1992; McCarty
and Shrum, 1994). Such interventions have often aimed at encouraging the pro-
environmental behavior of recycling by targeting students’ internal motivations that, in
turn, may positively change individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, perceived control, and level of

responsibility for recycling (Schultz, 2002).

McCaul and Kopp (I982) looked at how goal-setting and public commitment may have
impacted aluminum can recycling among students at a US university. They reported that
goal-setting (e. g. asking participants to collect a set quantity of recycling materials over a
period of time) promoted recycling among the university students but public commitment
(eg. publishing names of individuals who have made a commitment to recycle in campus
newspapers) did not significantly impact student recycling behavior. At a South Korean
university, Kim et a1. (2005) report that posting information on recycling receptacles on
the percentage of materials correctly separated and weight of materials collected at
recycling stations increased the percentage and number of correctly separated aluminum

cans and paper. They also found that removal of the recycling feedback corresponded

20

with a decrease in the percentage of recyclable materials correctly separated on campus
(Kim et al., 2005). In a study examining the relative effects of education and feedback
strategies on recycling knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behavior of 1619 university
students, Goldenhar and Connell (1992) found that students receiving recycling feedback
had higher levels of recycling behavior than those in the recycling education or control
groups. A recent review focusing on behavioral issues of successful recycling programs
identified both incentives and information as able to increase recycling behavior with
informational programs appearing more able to have more long-term effects than
incentive programs (Iyer and Kashyap, 2007). Austin et a1. (1993) examined the use of
prompts and education on paper recycling in two academic departments at Florida State
University. Austin et al. found that successful recycling prompts included a specific
request/appeal to recycle that was close in proximity to the location for the intended

recycling activity (e.g., recycling bins).

Werner et al.(2002) used field experiments at Utah University to examine the influence of
using effectively placed and developed signs to increase participation in aluminum can
recycling. The messages used by Werner et al. were developed based on models of
persuasion to test if signs can have Short- and/or long-term impacts on behavior. Their
experiments show that simple, well-designed signs can influence behavior while the signs
are in place as well as after their removal, as long as people are generally favorable
toward the behavior. Incentives such as rewards have also been shown to typically result
in greater participation in recycling programs but studies indicate that such behaviors are

not sustained once the reward is removed (Iyer and Kashyap, 2007).

21

Inconvenience and proximity of recycling receptacles have been widely discussed as
major constraints to college students’ recycling behavior (McCarty and Shrum, 1994;
Ludwig et al., 1998; Kelly et al., 2006). Ludwig et al. (1998) reported an increase in the
number of aluminum cans recycled when recycling receptacles were moved from
academic building hallways to the classrooms. They attributed this increase to the
convenience of having the receptacles closer to the point of students’ consumption (in the
classroom). Similarly, other studies report that students often claim a lack of storage
space as well as an absence of recycling bins at convenient locations are their reasons for

not recycling (Williams, 1991; Pike et al., 2003). V

Other researchers have examined respondents’ attitudes, knowledge and recycling
behavior as explanatory reasons for individuals’ participation in university recycling
programs (McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Ludwig et al., 1998; Cheung et al., 1999; Jennings,
2004; Kelly et al., 2006; Hansen et al., 2008). For example, pro-environmental attitudes
among college students in Hong Kong were found to predict their pro-environmental
behavior (increased wastepaper recycling) (Cheung et al., 1999). Cheung et a1. (1999)
used the Theory of Planned Behavior (TOPB) to examine waste paper recycling behavior
among undergraduates in Hong Kong. Their results revealed that TOPB significantly
predicted both behavioral intention and subsequent wastepaper-recycling behavior.
Meinhold and Malkus (2005) found an increased likelihood that students (high school
students from 3 cities on US west coast) with pro-environmental attitudes demonstrated
pro-environmental behaviors with increased environmental knowledge adding to the

impact of pro-environmental attitudes on behavior. These studies indicate that students

22

who consider recycling as a positive behavior are more likely to seek information and to
recycle more consistently. In addition, social norms and past behavior have also been
found to play an important role in predicting recycling on campus (Cheung et al., 1999;
Jennings, 2004). In her online report on recycling behaviors and attitudes of first-year
university students at the University of Connecticut, Jennings (2004) found the influence
of social norming (recycling) had a profound effect on the pro-environmental behaviors

of college students.

Previous research indicates that recycling behavior at university campuses may be
increased by adding recycling options, raising community members’ knowledge of
recycling, and by improving the convenience of recycling. While providing improved
recycling logistics, like recycling bins, can increase convenience and provide more
recycling opportunities, efforts to improve the knowledge levels of target populations
concerning recycling are rather complex. To date, only a few studies have focused on
strategies to improve the general knowledge of campus communities about recycling and

even fewer studies seem to have used preferences of the target audience to do so.

2.2 Knowledge and Campus Recycling Behavior

General knowledge of the importance of recycling as well as recycling program
characteristics is reported to influence attitudes and motivate recycling behavior.
Empirical evidence suggests that individuals’ participation in recycling programs is
correlated with their knowledge of how, where and what to recycle as well as their

knowledge of how recycling benefits the environment (F 012, 1999; Tucker, 1999; Barr et

23

al., 2003; McDonald and Oates, 2003). Likewise, an absence of specific knowledge
about recycling program characteristics has been identified as a barrier to recycling
program participation (Read, 1999; Kelly et al., 2006). For instance, Kelly et a1 (2006)
found that, among students and staff of Massey University, New Zealand, a lack of
program specific information (types of waste that can be recycled and where to take
recyclables) was widely cited by students as a reason for not recycling. In the same way,
general environmental knowledge was found to significantly predict waste paper

recycling behavior among undergraduates in Hong Kong (Cheung et al., 1999).

While knowledge about recycling program characteristics may not be the sole motivator
of recycling, it is generally viewed as an important barrier to recycling (Schultz, 2002).
Besides lowering recycling intensity and collection efficiency, a lack of recycling
knowledge was associated with increased contamination levels of recyclable material
collected (Scott, 1999). That is, the less program participants know about the program,
the greater their failure to properly participate (e.g., sort materials, separate trash).
Therefore, adequate communication of specific recycling program characteristics as well
as the environmental benefits of recycling seem to be important in promoting sustainable
pro-environmental behavior, changing potential participants’ habits, and improving
recycling efforts (Read, 1999; Evison and Read, 2001). Nevertheless, the tailoring and
implementation of campus recycling program communication strategies have been
largely understudied. This is also true when it comes to understanding the state of
knowledge of recycling program stakeholders and what specific recycling information

should be communicated as well as how such information should be conveyed.

24

2.3 Recycling Communication Strategies

It seems axiomatic that effective publicity and promotion about recycling program
characteristics should accompany the implementation of any recycling scheme. Informing
potential participants about what they are supposed to do as well as communicating the
value and benefits of recycling to potential participants has been generally accepted as
critical to sustaining recycling program participation (F012, 1999; Dahle and Neumayer,
2001; Thomas, 2001). Several approaches (media or modes) have been used to
communicate recycling program information to individuals. These communication modes
include newsletters, television advertisements, stickers on bins, radio commercials/public
service announcements and personal contacts. Some of these modes have been employed

in university settings.

In their work exploring the greening of higher education institutions, Dahle and
Neumayer (2001) reported that one of the most important measures that need to be taken
is to raise environmental awareness within campus communities. Some approaches in the
United Kingdom highlighted by Dahle and Neumayer included The University of Bath’s
creation of a guidance booklet about greening the institution as well as disposal routes for
waste materials and waste classifications and John Moores University’s website and a
monthly newspaper for informing students and staff about environmental gains and areas

that need improvement (Dahle and Neumayer, 2001).

Some institutions have designed recycling coursework as part of their efforts to

communicate recycling information and increase environmental awareness. For example,

25

Francis Marion University, a state-supported liberal arts college in South Carolina, US,
developed a recycling course in an attempt to satisfy the students’ goals of increasing
campus awareness about sustainability and recycling, and the teachers’ goals of using
problem-based learning approaches in class (Pike et al., 2003). Most often, it appears
that the communication modes have been determined more by the recycling program’s
budget than by demonstrated effectiveness (Read, 1999; Salhofer and Isaac, 2002; Martin

et al., 2006; Timlett and Williams, 2008).

While some recycling programs and their communication methods seem to have been
successful in increasing participation (McDonald and Ball, 1998; Mee and Clewes,
2004), others have failed to do so. For example, Read (1999) notes that despite extensive
publicity using leaflets and newsletters over a period of several years for a curbside
recycling scheme in Kensington and Chelsea, England, many residents there claim to
have never seen the publicity. De Young (1989) looked at recycling knowledge
differences between recyclers and non-recyclers and found that recycling education
programs need to focus on basic information needs. De Young suggests those basic
communication needs include: the time and space needs for recycling, an explanation of
what materials can be recycled and how they should be prepared, and provision of

information about where people may go for assistance.
Meneses (2006) attributes failure of many environmental education programs, such as

recycling communication programs, to Andreasen’s (1995) observation that such

programs too often focus on what the organization wants to transmit instead of on how to

26

adjust the environmental content to the target audience’s needs. Therefore, Meneses
(2006) concludes that it seems logical to emphasize the need for educators to gain a more
detailed understanding of the characteristics, learning processes, values, and recycling
knowledge levels of audiences before designing education programs. Successful
recycling program communication approaches seem to depend on understanding the
perspectives and perceptions of the target groups. It appears that individuals may increase
their recycling activities for a variety of reasons when there are appropriate
communication strategies. Such strategies appear to be central to improving recycling
behavior. The design and tailoring of recycling program educational and communication
campaigns remains largely understudied. Therefore, this paper attempts to address this
gap as it relates to recycling program communication strategies for a large, research-

intensive university community in the Midwest (US).

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Research Questions
The research reported here focuses on Michigan State University student, staff, and
faculty recycling program knowledge and communication preferences which will help
inform new recycling program communication strategies. Specifically, this paper
addresses the following research questions:
I) What should be the focus (content) of recycling communication for the various
segments of a university population?
2) What is the most effective medium for communicating recycling program

attributes to the various constituencies of a university community?

27

3) What communication strategies should be adopted to effectively convey

recycling information to the various segments of the university community?

3.2 Research Site

This study was conducted on the campus of Michigan State University [MSU], a large
Tier 1 public university in the Midwest of the United States. As a pioneer land-grant
institution in the US, MSU has a long tradition of using the research and knowledge it
generates to create practical solutions that make a difference for individuals and
communities across Michigan and around the world. The campus is situated on more than
5,200 acres of land and consists of over 580 buildings on the contiguous campus
including 85 with instructional space. The university offers more than 200 different
programs for undergraduates and graduate studies in 17 degree-granting colleges. With
about 10,000 graduate and professional students and over 36,000 undergraduates, the
university runs one of the largest residential hall systems in the United States and
employs over 10,000 faculty and staff personnel. Roughly 8% of MSU students are

international students from about 130 different countries.

Like most institutions of higher education, the MSU community engages in various
activities that generate large volumes of solid waste. During the 2004/5 academic year,
an estimated total of 12,100 tons of waste from MSU was sent to landfills. As part of its
solid waste management strategy, MSU institutionalized a recycling program in 1990 that
primarily focused on collecting white paper, mixed paper, magazines, newspapers and

cardboard from academic buildings. In the first year of the program, about 200 tons of

28

paper were recycled. In 2006, more than 1,600 tons of paper were recycled. While the
university has had some collection locations for newspapers, corrugated board, steel cans,
aluminum, clear glass, brown glass, plastic bottles, magazines, white paper, and mixed
paper recycling, the previous MSU program was not especially well coordinated.
Typically, MSU stakeholders complained about the relatively small number of recycling
bins seemingly scattered across campus in relatively unknown locations (Hansen et al.
2008). In its effort to extend its land grant university mission and decrease its
environmental footprint, MSU authorized funds for the planning, design, construction,
and implementation of a state-of-the-art campus-wide recycling program with a newly

built recycling center.

3.3 Survey Design

As part of a larger campus sustainability planning effort, researchers began to develop a
web-based survey using an iterative process. First, a series of key informant interviews
were conducted with university administrators, consulting engineers, faculty active in
university environmental affairs, as well as with undergraduate and graduate students.
Next, focus groups with members of the target audiences were conducted followed by an
iterative survey design/pretesting/revision process (Kaplowitz et al., 2004). Some
research results based on analyses of the project’s focus group data have been published
(e.g., Hansen et al. 2008). The final web-survey of recycling program design seamlessly
routed respondents through a series of questions about recycling options for where they
live and work, their recycling knowledge and attitudes, and their preferences regarding

alternative recycling program characteristics (See Appendix 1 for survey sample pages).

29

Analyses of the recycling program preference questions are reported elsewhere (Gebben,

2008)

Questions in the survey were designed to help develop an effective communication
strategy as part of the university’s implementation of a new campus recycling initiative.
In line with recommendations in Meneses (2006), survey questions sought to measure
levels of awareness of university community constituencies concerning campus recycling
efforts as well as respondents’ receptivity to receive information on recycling. Survey
items were also designed to measure respondents’ perceived effectiveness of a range of
communication options as well as gauge respondents’ preferred media for receiving
campus recycling information. The questions took into account respondents’ knowledge
of the then current campus recycling program features. For instance, since the existing
program focused primary on paper products, questions were asked of participants
concerning their knowledge of the range of paper products that could be recycled on
campus. The survey items were also informed by input from university’s communication
team on available and likely communication modes (media) and publicity options
(posters, personal contacts, media ads, promotions and technology publicity). Pretesting
including focus groups and one-on-one interviews led researchers to conclude that
respondents understood each of these publicity options and therefore could make

informed choices (See Appendix 1).

30

3.4. Sampling Procedure and Implementation

The university community consists of three principle constituencies—students, faculty
and staff. To ensure each of these campus constituencies was adequately represented in
the study, a stratified random sampling technique was employed. A random sample list
was generated for each campus constituency (students, staff and faculty) with each list

consisting of 30% of each group. The sample lists were randomly drawn from the

university official records2 to ensure that each university community member had an
equal probability of being selected. Overall, 15,652 faculty, staff, and students were
selected as part of a stratified random sample to participate in the study. The Michigan
State University registrar provided the researchers with the random sample of student
(email and mailing addresses) and the university computing service provided the random
sample lists of faculty and staff. The degree of control as well as background respondent
information for the sample list is unique relative to other on-line surveys since it allowed
researchers to track who received invitations to participate, who responded as well as
some demographic characteristics of the entire population, not just those who participated
in the study. An initial invitation was sent to all members of the sample during November
2007, informing them of the study and providing them with a link to the survey. Up to
two additional invitations to participate were sent to potential respondents during

November and December 2007. That is, those members of our sample who did not

 

2 . . . . .

Because students may restrict all or part of their directory Information from release to
any third party in accordance with the Family Education Right to Privacy Act (FERPA)
and faculty/staff may also restrict home address and phone information, the master lists
for drawing the three sample lists were slightly smaller than the actual population of each

group.

31

participate in the survey after the first invitation were asked to participate a second time,

and finally, non-respondents were contacted a third time and reminded to participate.

4. RESULTS

Completed surveys, returned invitations to participate, and other outcomes were recorded
for each member of the sample. The submitted survey data were checked for errors,
placed into Standard spreadsheet data files (e.g., Microsoft Excel®), and imported into
statistical software files for further analyses (e.g., Statistical Package for Social Scientist,
SPSS®). Subsequent analyses included computing and analysis of the mean response to
each survey item in the aggregate as well as for each of the three campus constituencies
(groups). Within the groups (students, faculty and staff), we examined differences across
individual survey items and measures. Since individuals answered the multiple survey
items that were related to key concepts under investigation, a pair-samples t test was used
to examine significant differences across select survey items. We also tested for
significant differences among the mean responses of the three groups to survey items
using an analysis of variance test (ANOVA). Where significant differences were found
across groups, further analysis using the Tukey post hoc test was undertaken to explore
where the differences exist. In order to provide guidance for policymaking, we
constructed a relative ranking of the survey item responses based on the mean scores for

these items. In these rankings, we made sure to group together items that were not

significantly different from each other in the same rank (e.g., 1“, 2nd, 3rd) so that

differently ranked items are significantly different from each other.

32

4.1 Response Rate

Table 2.1 presents the overall (total) response rate of our survey as well as the response
rate for each of the three campus constituencies. Overall, a total of 15,652 survey
invitations were sent to 12,108 students, 1,481 faculty and 2,063 staff (about 30 percent
of MSU). Of those invitations, 182 were determined to have been sent to incorrect
addresses and were deemed to be ineligible. A total of 3896 individuals participated in
the survey. As Table 1 illustrates, the American Association for Public Opinion Research
(AAPOR) minimum response rate (RRl) for the study was 24.9 percent (AAPOR, 2006)
with variations across the groups. Staff responded at a higher rate (42.8%) than faculty
(38.0%) and students (20.2%). These response rates are significantly different across the
different campus sub-populations - students, faculty, and staff (x2(2,n=15652)=630.85,
p=0.000). It is fair to say that more staff responded than faculty and that more faculty
responded than did students. In the aggregate, respondents were approximately 58%
females and 42% male, which varies only slightly from overall university demographics.
A higher proportion of staff (67%) and students (57%) respondents were females while
majority of the faculty respondents were males (59%). These differences do roughly

mirror the demographics of the university community.

33

Table 2.1 Response Rates

 

 

 

Group Addressees Completes RRl

Total 15,652 3,896 24.9%
Students 12,108 2,450 20.3%
Faculty 1,481 563 37.8%
Staff 2,063 883 42.8%

 

4.2 Recycling Knowledge

Respondents’ current level of knowledge of university recycling and waste management
efforts was assessed using questions with five-point Likert-type response choices, with 1
indicating ‘not at all knowledgeable’ and 5 indicating ‘very knowledgeable’.
Respondents rated their level of knowledge concerning the range of paper products that
may be recycled on campus (paper products recycle), environmental benefits associated
with recycling (environmental benefits), different places on campus where materials can
be recycled (recycling location), and waste reduction strategies they can use on campus
(See Appendix 1 for examples of survey questions). Table 2.2 reports the mean scores
and rankings of responses to the recycling knowledge items. Table 2.2 (like Tables 2.3
and 2.4) presents aggregate results for the university community as well as results for
each of the three sub-populations—students, faculty and staff. Within each constituency,
the relative ranking of the knowledge items is provided. Recall that items whose mean
scores are not significantly different are placed in the same rank. We also present the

relative ranking of each item across the three constituencies as denoted by the superscript

34

letters (a,b,c). That is, if an item has the same relative rank (e. g., ISL) for students, faculty,

and staff, then that item would have the same superscript letter (e.g., a) in the three
groups. So, items across groups with the same letter are not significantly different from

each other.

In the aggregate, environmental benefits was ranked as the item about which the
university community is most knowledgeable while knowledge of the different places on
campus where materials can be recycled (recycling location) was ranked as the item the
university community is least aware. Knowledge of the waste reduction strategies on
campus also appears higher for the university community than knowledge of the range of
paper products that can be recycled. A paired-samples t test revealed significant
differences between the means of these survey items at a 95% confidence interval. The
university community’s mean knowledge of the environmental benefits (M=3.79 SD =
0.95) was significantly greater than their knowledge of waste reduction strategies
(M=3.15 SD=1.02), t(3805)=35.73, p<0.001; knowledge of paper products recycled
(M=2.59 SD=1.04), t(3790)=-65.01 p<0.001, and their knowledge of recycling locations
(M=2.36 SD=1.11), t(3802)=69.14 p<0.001. In descending order of awareness, the
university community ranked their knowledge of the following items: environmental

benefits, waste reduction strategy, paper recycling and recycling location (See Table 2.2).

35

Table 2.2 Mean ratings on self reported level of knowledge of recycling knowledge
items (5-point scale: 1= Not at all knowledgeable to 5= very knowledgeable)

 

Knowledge items Mean* Standard Deviation Rank“

 

University community

Environmental benefits 3 .79 0.95 1 st
Waste reduction strategies 3.15 1.02 2nd
Paper product recycle 2.59 1.04 3rd
Recycling location 2.36 1.1 1 4th
Students
Environmental benefits 3.83b 0.94 lst
Waste reduction strategies 3.03 b 1.04 2nd
Paper product recycle 2.56 b 1.03 3rd
Recycling location 2.478 1.1 1 4th
Faculty
Environmental benefits 3 .973 0.94 1 st
Waste reduction strategies 3.36a 0.99 2nd
Paper product recycle 2.71a 1.03 3rd
Recycling location 2.30 b 1.1 1 4th
Staff or support
Environmental benefits 3.620 0.93 lst
Waste reduction strategies 3.34a 0.97 2nd
Paper product recycle 2.61b 1.05 3rd
Recycling location 2.1 1c 1 .l 1 4th

 

* Within group, each rank (lst, 2nd, etc) is significantly different, p<0.05
Across the groups, each letter (a,b,c) is significantly different at p<0.05

36

The relative ranking of the knowledge items for the three campus constituencies does not
appear to differ from the aggregate rankings for the sample population. As Table 2.2
illustrates, recycling knowledge levels of students, staff, and faculty concerning the
locations on the university campus where materials can be recycled was generally low
(2.47 to 2.11) and knowledge of the environmental benefits of recycling was highest
(3.97 to 3.62). However, the mean scores on these knowledge items does appear to be
significantly different across groups. For instance, faculty self-reported having
significantly greater knowledge than did students on the environmental benefits of
recycling; waste reduction strategies; and the paper products that can be recycled on
campus. Faculty also self-reported significantly greater levels of knowledge as compared
to staff on most items. At the same time, students expressed having greater knowledge of
the environmental benefits of recycling and the different places on campus where
materials can be recycled than did staff. However, students reported a relatively low level

of knowledge of waste reduction strategies on campus.

4.2 Recycling Information Needs/Desires

Respondents were asked to self-report their interest in receiving information on how to
recycle materials properly as well as the benefits of recycling. Using a five-point Likert-
type scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree,’ respondents were asked to
indicate their level of agreement with the following two statements: “I would like to learn
more about the benefits of recycling,” and “I would like more information on how to
recycle materials properly.” Table 2.3 illustrates the mean responses of the aggregate

sample as well as those of the three campus constituencies. A higher degree of agreement

37

with each statement indicates greater desire on the part of respondents to receive such

information.

As shown in Table 2.3, the mean score for willingness to receive information on how to
recycle properly for the university community was 3.69 while that of the various campus
segments ranged from 3.74 among staff to 3.58 for faculty. Similarly, the mean score for
willingness to receive information on the benefits of recycling was 3.38 for the university
community and ranged from 3.43 for students to 3.06 for faculty. These results suggest a
general willingness of respondents to receive information from the university in both
areas—recycling benefits and how to recycle properly. However, a paired-samples t-test
comparing the mean willingness to learn about how to recycle (M=3.69 SD=0.92) and the
environmental benefits of recycling (M=3.38 SD=0.94) reveals significant differences for
the two items; t (3696) =-24.00 p<0.001. This result indicates a greater willingness of the
university community to learn about how to recycle properly than to learn about the
environmental benefits of recycling. This was also true for all the three campus
constituents. Across the campus groups, there were significant differences in the mean
score for these two statements. While students did not significantly differ from staff in
their desire to receive information on both how to recycle and the benefits of recycling,
faculty expressed a significantly lower desire to receive information about recycling

topics than students and staff.

38

Table 2.3 Mean ratings on respondents’ willingness to receive information
(5-point scale: l=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)

 

Information need Mean Standard deviation Rank

 

University community

How to recycle properly 3.69 0.92 lst

Benefits of recycling 3.38 0.94 2nd
Students

How to recycle properly 3.70a 0.94 lst

Benefits of recycling 3.43a 0.93 2nd
Faculty

How to recycle properly 3.58b 1.03 lst

Benefits of recycling 3.06b 1.02 2nd
Staff or support

How to recycle properly 3.74a 0.81 lst

Benefits of recycling 3.41a 0.89 2nd

 

* Within group, each rank (lst, 2nd, etc) is significantly different, p<0.05
Across the groups, each letter (a,b,c) is significantly different at p<0.05

4.3 Publicity Option

To help determine the most effective methods (media) for communicating recycling
program information (publicity options) to the campus populations, respondents were
asked to rate the effectiveness of five publicity options: posters, media ads, technology
publicity, personal contacts and promotions. The survey provided a brief description of
each of the five publicity options to enable respondents to make informed ratings (See
Appendix 1). Respondents rated their opinion of the effectiveness of each publicity

option using a five-point scale with 1 indicating ‘very ineffective’ and 5 indicating ‘very

39

effective’. Table 2.4 presents the mean effectiveness rating for each publicity options for
the university community as a whole as well as for each group (faculty, staff, and
students). Respondents saw all five publicity options as somewhat effective means for
publicizing recycling and recycling program information on campus. The mean scores for
the publicity option effectiveness ranged from 3.94 to 3.57 for all respondents; 4.11 to
3.62 for students; 3.67 to 3.36 for faculty; and 3.87 to 3.55 for staff. Our analysis of these
results revealed some significant differences in publicity option effectiveness within each
campus group. In the aggregate, respondents ranked the effectiveness of publicity options
as follows: promotion, personal contacts, posters, media ads, and technology publicity

with each rank statistically different from each other at 95% confidence interval.

As Table 2.4 illustrates, each of the three campus community groups significantly

differed in their relative ranking of media effectiveness. While students ranked

. . t . . .
promotions as most effective (ranked 1S ), faculty and staff did not perceive promotions

as being that effective (ranked 3rd and 2nd, respectively). Conversely, staff and faculty

see the use of personal contact as the communication strategy the most effective

communication strategy for the new recycling program (ranked 1“) while students do not

nd . .
(ranked 2 ). For student respondents, the perceived mean effectiveness of posters as a

communication strategy (M=3.66, SD=0.92) was not significantly different from the use

of technology publicity (M=3.62, SD=1.04), t(2310)=160, p<0.11.

40

Table 2.4 Mean ratings of perceived effectiveness of publicity options
(5-point scale: 1=very ineffective to 5=very effective)

 

 

Publicity option Mean Standard deviation Rank
University community
Promotion 3 .94 0.99 1 st
Personal contacts 3.83 0.98 2nd
Media ads 3.69 0.91 3rd
Posters 3.65 0.93 4th
Technology publicity 3.57 1.04 5th
Students
Promotion 4. 1 1a 0.92 1 st
Personal contacts 3 .84a 0.98 2nd
Media ads 3.76“I 0.89 3rd
Posters 3.67"1 0.92 4th
Technology publicity 3.62a 1.04 4th
Faculty
Promotion 3 .46c 1 . 12 2nd
Personal contacts 3 .67b 1 .08 1 st
Media ads 3.42c 0.98 2nd
Posters 3 .47b 1.01 2nd
Technology publicity 3.36b 1.1 1 2nd
Staff
Promotion 3.76b 0.99 2nd
Personal contacts 3.87a 0.93 lst
Media ads 3.65b 0.90 3rd&4th
Posters 3.70a 0.88 3rd
Technology publicity 3.55a 0.99 4th

 

* Within group, each rank (lst, 2nd, etc) is significantly different, p<0.05
Across the groups, each letter (a,b,c) is significantly different at p<0.05

41

Staff also seem to be indifferent between the efficacy of posters (M=3.72, SD=0.86) and
promotion (M=3.78, SD=0.99), t(850)=1.45, p<0.15 as well as posters and media ads
(M=3.67, SD=0.89), t(850)=1.57, p<0.12. When comparing the perceived effectiveness of
the various publicity options for faculty respondents, the results revealed that only
personal contact is significantly different from the other publicity options. That is, faculty
rate personal contact as their preferred communication approach and see posters,

promotions, media ads and technology publicity to be unifome less effective.

Analyses of the publicity ratings across the campus groups reveal that faculty seem to
perceive all five publicity options as less effective than do the students and staff. For
instance, although faculty rank personal contacts as the most effective option, their rating
of personal contacts’ effectiveness (M= 3.67) was significantly lower than the
effectiveness rating for personal contacts by staff (M= 3.87) and students (M= 3.84).
Student respondents’ effectiveness rating of personal contacts, posters and technology

publicity was not significantly different from those of staff respondents (Table 2.4).

5. DISCUSSION

This study focused on identifying recycling knowledge gaps as well as effective
communication options as part of an effort to inform the design and implementation of a
new recycling initiative. The state of knowledge of the university community as it relates
to campus recycling and waste reduction strategies was assessed using a campus-wide
survey. The results show that the university community is somewhat aware of the

environmental benefits of recycling but that community members lack knowledge of the

42

range of materials that can be recycled and the places on campus where these items can
be recycled. This finding was true for students, faculty and staff respondents. The results
indicate that the university community has a greater willingness to learn about how to
recycle properly rather than learn about benefits associated with recycling. The findings
suggest that recycling program administrators need to have communication strategies that
do more than explain reasons why one should recycle. That is, communication campaigns
lead to increased recycling participation when gaps in participants’ knowledge of how to
act, what can be recycled and where to take recyclables are addressed (McDonald and
Oates, 2003; Do Valle et al., 2004; Kelly et al., 2006). The lack of knowledge on what
and how to recycle properly can result in lower recycling intensity and increased
contamination levels of collected recyclables (Scott 1999). While increasing participation
is critical to the success of recycling programs, how well individuals recycle (e.g., proper
separation) and how effectively they participate is also important (Thomas, 2001).
Consequently, as this study’s results suggest, recycling publicity efforts should focus on
educating communities’ constituencies about the range of materials that can be recycled
(what) and the different recycling collection locations (where). Doing so would address
the relatively low levels of knowledge reported by respondents in these areas as well as
promote increased knowledge on how to recycle properly. Since the three campus groups
did not significantly differ in their relative rankings of the knowledge items and their
receptivity to recycling information, it appears the focus and content of recycling
publicity campaigns covering what, where, and how to proceed with campus recycling

need not differ across the three campus populations.

43

The campus community appears receptive to information on both how to recycle properly
and the benefits of recycling. This receptivity to recycling information could be linked to
a general positive attitude of the university community towards the recycling program as
well as a desire to improve their recycling knowledge. Previous literature has found
students with positive attitudes towards recycling to be more likely to seek information
and recycle consistently (Jennings, 2004). The respondents’ general receptivity to
recycling information could be motivated by their relatively high knowledge of the
environmental benefits of recycling and thus a desire to recycle. A recent study on the
MSU campus supports this idea. Focus groups revealed a general positive attitude of
participants toward recycling and environmental initiatives at MSU (Hansen et al., 2008).
That insight, together with the survey results, are not in line with Kelly et al. (2006) who
report the campus community of Massey University as not wanting to receive

information on the university recycling scheme or on recycling in general.

In addition, the reported results highlight the importance of recycling availability and
convenience on campus. Generally, respondent knowledge of the different campus
recycling locations is the knowledge item with the lowest mean scores for each of the
campus populations. If adequate recycling receptacles were to be placed at convenient
locations across campus, one would at least expect the recycling program to overcome
the lack of knowledge of where to take recyclables. Such an assumption is supported by
the increased recycling observed by Ludwig et al. (1998) upon moving receptacles into a
more convenient location. Our result may thus imply that, the current program has failed

either to adequately inform community members of collection locations and recycling

44

opportunities on campus or provide adequate logistics for recycling. Therefore, while
educating the Michigan State University community on where and why to recycle, MSU
appears to be justified in their plans to provide increased numbers and types of recycling
bins at convenient locations across campus. Doing so is in line with our results as well as
previous literature since knowledge of recycling program characteristics alone is
insufficient to promote recycling when necessary logistics like recycling bins are absent

(McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Ludwig et al., 1998; Williams and Kelly, 2003).

To overcome subjects’ recycling knowledge gap, the design and implementation of a
communication strategy that effectively addresses the information needs of the campus
population is necessary. This is consistent with the literature demonstrating correlation
between recycling participation and individuals’ knowledge of how, where, what, and
why to recycle (F012, 1999; Tucker, 1999; Barr et al., 2003; McDonald and Oates, 2003).
Furthermore, Read (1999), Schultz (2002), and Kelly, et al. (2006) all identified absence
of knowledge pertaining to recycling program characteristics as a barrier to recycling
participation. Among the variety of techniques that may be employed to publicize
recycling on campus, the study results show that different target populations on campus
perceive different communication/publicity methods to be most effective. Respondents
rated all five publicity options as being somewhat effective methods for publicizing
recycling on campus. This may imply that any of the publicity options could potentially
be an effective communication channel. Such acceptance of publicity options in general
seems reasonable, since the literature says little about particular communication

techniques while asserting that informing participants of the values and benefits of

45

recycling is critical for sustaining participation (F012, 1999; Dahle and Neumayer, 2001;

Thomas, 2001 ).

However, the three segments of the population ranked the relative effectiveness of the
various publicity options differently. This may suggest the need to use different media to
communicate recycling information to different groups depending on what media they
deem to be effective. This finding provides support for the need to tailor recycling
publicity programs to specific target audiences (Howenstine, 1993). The ranking of
perceived effectiveness of the publicity options revealed that promotions are highly
favored by students, while faculty and staff prefer personal contact. Promotional
campaigns such as competitions between campus units have been shown to encourage
pro-environmental behavior among college students (Marcell et al., 2004). The observed
differences in perceived effectiveness of publicity options could be explained partly by
the fact that various campus segments differ in their demographic characteristics and the
common areas and activities in which they engage on campus. Furthermore, the
“promotion” publicity option appears as the only choice that provides some form of
incentive to respondents. The possible incentives associated with promotion might have
influenced its high ranking among students considering their relatively low
socioeconomic status. However, Iyer and Kashyap (2007) warn that while incentives
have typically resulted in greater recycling participation, the behavior is not sustained
after the reward is removed. Therefore, despite the appeal demonstrated by students for

promotional communication, this technique may be less effective in the long-term.

46

Personal contacts, though ranked second in the aggregate, appear to be the most favorable
communication strategy for faculty and staff. Thus, there appears to be a rationale to use
personal contacts for communication about a recycling program. Studies examining the
effectiveness of communication strategies for recycling have reported favorable impact of
personal contacts in influencing behavioral change (Read, 1999; Grodzinska-Jurczak et
al., 2006). However, the literature maintains that its effectiveness depends on how well
versed the trained contacts are in the issues of recycling to be able to provide necessary
supportive evidence and argument for the program (Read, 1999). Hence, when
considering personal contact as a publicity option, it is essential that the trained
contacts/mentors possess a great deal of knowledge regarding the operations of the
campus recycling scheme as well as the benefits of recycling as a whole. Further, the
communication strategy should consider options for developing a network of personal
contacts for each stakeholder group such as building or departmental level environmental

stewards.

Although technology publicity is widely used for communication purposes among the
campus populations, it was perceived to be the least effective among the campus
population for communicating about campus recycling. Read (1999) describes how,
despite extensive publicity over several years for a recycling program in Kensington and
Chelsea, England, many residents there claim they never saw the publicity. Thus
technology publicity might be so abundant that it could easily be overlooked and
therefore may not achieve the desired impact of publicizing recycling on campus. On the

other hand, media ads and posters appear to be moderately favored by the c ampus

47

segments and could potentially be used to complement the promotion and personal
contacts. The differences in the campus constituent groups’ relative rankings of the
publicity options underscore the need for target populations’ inputs in the design of a
communication strategy. It also implies that, no single communication approach could
effectively produce the desired outcome. Proposed publicity approaches should

differentiate their mode based on the target audiences.

6. Conclusion

In 2006, Michigan State University launched the Be Spartan Green Environmental
Stewardship Initiative and as part of this campus initiative, an improved recycling
program is being designed, built, and implemented. MSU is not alone in such efforts as
numerous colleges and universities have tried to increase campus recycling to manage
waste and demonstrate campus sustainability efforts (Pike et al., 2003; Barlett and Chase,
2004). Growing and sustained participation of university community members is central
to the success of any campus-recycling program especially when the program relies on
proceeds from sales of materials to cover cost. It is thus essential to design and
implement strategies that will minimize the barriers to recycling and thereby enhance
participation. The literature indicates information and education efforts have a vital role
in influencing knowledge about recycling, recycling attitudes, and recycling behavior
(Barr et al., 2003; Iyer and Kashyap, 2007). Thus, in efforts to improve recycling on the
university campus, this study has focused on understanding the campus community’s
recycling knowledge of the university’s recycling and waste reduction efforts, their

willingness to receive information on recycling as well as their perceived effectiveness of

48

various communication alternatives towards the design of an effective communication

strategy.

The study revealed a recycling knowledge gap among the segments of the university
community on what to recycle, where to recycle and how to recycle. It is recommended
that recycling publicity campaigns should focus first on educating the university
community on these items. Not only is this recommendation in line with our own
findings, but is also supported by the literature which indicates communication increases
recycling participation when it addresses such knowledge gaps as how, what, and where
to recycle (DoValle, et al., 2004, F012, 1999, Kelly, et al., 2006, McDonald and Oates,
2003, Tucker, 1999). Respondents appear receptive to such a publicity campaign and
expressed their willingness to receive this type of information. We also recommend the
provision of adequate recycling bins at convenient locations on campus to help increase
the convenience of recycling, provide more recycling opportunities and to assist in
addressing the knowledge gaps on where material can be recycled. This is in line with our
results as well as previous literature which denote that knowledge alone is insufficient to
promote recycling without the necessary logistics (McCarty and Shrum, 1994; Ludwig et

al., 1998; Williams and Kelly, 2003)

Finally, although the university community, in the aggregate, perceived all five
communication alternatives to be somewhat effective, it is recommended that a recycling
program publicity approach differentiate publicity efforts according to stakeholder

groups’ knowledge and preference—It appears that one size does not fit all. Our results

49

indicate that students highly favor promotions while faculty and staff prefer personal
contact, which ranked second behind promotions for students. Studies have reported that
personal contacts can have a favorable impact in influencing positive recycling behavior
(Read, 1999; Grodzinska-Jurczak et al., 2006). Furthermore, recommending the use of
promotion to communicate recycling information to students is not only supported by our
research, but the literature also illustrate that promotional campaigns have encouraged
college students to participate in pro-environmental behaviors (Marcell et al., 2004).
However, Iyer and Kashyap (2007) caution the use of incentives because the behavior is
not typically sustained after removing the reward. Therefore, despite the appeal
demonstrated by students for promotional communication, this technique may be less

effective in the long-term and ought to be coupled with other publicity techniques.

50

REFERENCES

Alshuwaikhat, H.M., Abubakar, 1., 2008. An integrated approach to achieving campus
sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices
Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-9.

Andreasen, A., 1995. Marketing social change: Changing behavior to promote health,
social development and the environment. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Austin, J., Hatfield, D.B., C., G.A., Bailey, J., 1993. Increasing recycling in office
environments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 26, 247-253.

Barlett, P.F., Chase, G.W., 2004. Sustainability on campus: Stories and strategies for
change. MIT Press, MA.

Barr, S.F., Nicholas, J ., Gilg, A.W., 2003. Attitudes towards recycling household waste in
Exeter, Devon: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Local Environment 8, 407-421.

Cheung, S.F., Chan, D.K.-S., Wong, Z.S.-Y., 1999. Re-examing the theory of planned
behavior in understanding wastepaper recycling. Environment and Behavior 31, 587-612.

Dahle, M., Neumayer, E., 2001. Overcoming barriers to campus greening: A survey
among higher educational institutions in London, UK. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 2.

De Young, R., 1989. Exploring the difference between recyclers and non-recyclers: the
role of information. Journal of Environmental Systems 18, 341-351.

Do Valle, P.O., Reis, E., Menezes, J., Rebelo, E., 2004. Behavioral determinants of
household recycling participation: The Portuguese. Environment and Behavior 36, 505-
540.

Evison, T., Read, A.D., 2001. Local authority recycling and waste awareness
publicity/promotion. Resources Conservation and Recycling 32, 275-291.

Folz, DH, 1999. Municipal recycling performance: A public sector environmental
success story. . Public Admistration Review 86, 971-984.

Gebben, D., 2008. Attribute based modelling of recycling preferences at Michigan State
University. Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics. Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI.

Geller, E.S., Chaffee, J .L., Ingram, RE, 1975. Promoting paper recycling on a university
campus. Journal of Environmental Systems 5, 39-57.

51

Goldenhar, L.M., Connel, C.M., 1992. Effects of educational and feedback interventions
on recycling knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behavior. Journal of Environmental
Systems 21, 321-333.

Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Tomal, P., Tarbula-Fiertak', M., Nieszporek, K., Read, A.D.,
2006. Effects of an educational campaign on public environmental attitudes and behavior
in Poland Resources Conservation and Recycling 46, 182-197.

Hansen, L.T., Olson, L., Kerr, J., McMellen, C., Kaplowitz, M., Thorp, L., 2008.
Recycling attitudes and behaviors on a college campus: Use of qualitative methodology
in a mixed-methods study. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research 2, 173-182.

Howenstine, E., 1993. Market segmentation for recycling. Environment and Behavior 25,
86-102.

Iyer, E.S., Kashyap, R.K., 2007. Consumer recycling: Role of incentives, information and
social class. Journal of Consumer Behavior 6, 32-47.

Jennings, ME, 2004. An instrument to measure the recycling attitudes and beliefs of
Undergraduate Students at a Large Northeastern University. Online submission,
Education Resources Information Center 22.

Kaplowitz, M., Lupi, F ., Hoehn, JP, 2004. Multiple-methods for developing and
evaluating a stated choice survey to value wetlands. In: Pressor, S., Rothgeb, J.M.,
Couper, M.P., Lessler, J .T., Martin, E., Martin, J ., Singer, E. (Eds), Methods for Testing
and Evaluating Survey Questionnaire. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 503-524.

Kelly, T.C., Mason, I.G., Leiss, M.W., S., G., 2006. University community responses to
on-campus resource recycling. Resources Conservation and Recycling 47, 42-55.

Keniry, J ., 1995. Ecodemia: Campus environmental stewardship at the turn of the 2lst
century. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC USA.

Kim, S., Oah, S., Dickinson, A.M., 2005. The Impact of public feedback on three
recycling-related behaviors in South Korea. Environment and Behavior 37, 258-274.

Ludwig, T.D., Gray, T.W., Rowell, A., 1998. Increasing recycling in academic buildings:
A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31, 683-686.

Luyben, P.D., Cummings, S., 1981. Motivating beverage container recycling on a college
campus. Journal of Environmental Systems 11, 235-245.

Marcell, K., Agyeman, J ., Rappaport, A., 2004. Cooling The Campus: Experiences from
a pilot study to reduce electricity use at Tufts University, USA, Using Social Marketing
Methods. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 5, 169-189.

52

Martin, M., Williams, I.D., Clark, M., 2006. Social, cultural and structural influences on

household waste recycling: A case study. Resources Conservation and Recycling 48,
357-395.

Mason, I.G., Brooking, A.K., Oberender, A., Harford, J .M., Horsley, P.G., 2003.
Implementation of a zero waste program at a university campus. Resources Conservation
and Recycling 38, 257-269.

McCarty, J.A., Shrum, L.J., 1994. The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value
orientations, and attitudes about recycling as an antecedent of recycling behavior. Journal
of Business Res. 30, 53-62.

McCaul, K.D., Kopp, J.T., 1982. Efects of goal setting and commitment on increasing
metal recycling. Journal of Applied Psychology 67, 377-379.

McDonald, S., Ball, R., 1998. Public participation in plastic recycling schemes.
Resources Conservation and Recycling 22, 123-141.

McDonald, S., Oates, C., 2003. Reasons for non-participation in a kerbside recycling
scheme. Resources Conservation and Recycling 39, 369-385.

Mee, N., Clewes, D., 2004. The influence of corporate communications on recycling
behaviour. Corporate Communications: An international Journal 9, 265-275.

Meinhold, J.L., Malkus, A.J., 2005. Adolescent environmental behaviors: Can
knowledge, attitudes and self-efficacy make a difference. Environment and Behavior 37,
511-532.

Meneses, GD, 2006. How to teach recycling at advanced phase of diffusion. Journal of
Environmental Education 37(4), 19-32.

Pike, L., Shannon, T., Lawrimore, K., Mcgee, A., Taylor, M., Lamoreaux, G., 2003.
Science education and sustainability initiatives: A campus recycling case study shows the
importance of opportunity. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 4,
218-229.

Read, A.D., 1999. A weekly doorstep recycling collection, I had no idea we could!
Overcoming the local barriers to participate. Resources Conservation and Recycling 26,
217-249.

Salhofer, S., Isaac, NA, 2002. Importance of public relations in recycling strategies:
Principles and case studies. Environmental Management 30, 68-76.

Schultz, P.W., 2002. Knowledge, Information, and household recycling: examining the
knowledge-deficit model of behavior change In: Dietz, T. (Ed.), New tools for
environmental protection. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 67-82.

53

Scott, D., 1999. Equal opportunity, unequal results: determinants of household recycling
intensity,. Environment and Behavior 31, 267-290.

Thomas, C., 2001. Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in
Hampshire and Milton Keynes. . Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32, 259-274.

Timlett, R.E., Williams, I.D., 2008. Public participation and recycling performance in
England: A comparison of tools for behavior change. Resources Conservation and
Recycling 52, 622-634.

Tucker, P., 1999. A survey of attitudes and barriers to kerbside recycling. Environmental
and Waste Management 2.

UNESCO, 1972. The Stockholm Declaration. In: UNESCO (Ed.), Stockholm.
UNESCO, 1990. The Talloires Declaration. In: UNESCO (Ed.), Gland.

Warner, C.M., Stoll, R., Birch, P., White, RH, 2002. Clinical validation and cognitive
elaboration: Signs that encourage sustained recycling. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology 24, 185-203.

Williams, E., 1991. College students and recycling: Their attitudes and behavior. Journal
of College Student Development 32, 86-88.

Williams, I.D., Kelly, J., 2003. Green waste collections and public recycling behavior in
the Borough of Wyne, England. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38, 139-159.

Wright, T.S.A., 2002. Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in
higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 3.

54

CHAPTER 3 - ESSAY TWO
ASKING WHETHER RESPONDENTS FAVOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION OR ECONOMIC GROWTH MAY MISS THE MARK: TESTING
A DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY QUESTION

ABSTRACT

Individuals’ and societies’ worldviews, as they relate to the environment, have been
traditionally classified as either pro-environmental protection or pro-economic
development. However, the usefulness of this dichotomous classification has not been
thoroughly examined. Using results from a web-based survey (N =3922, RR=24.9%), this
study examines the efficacy of a widely used dichotomous response choice question to
accurately capture individuals’ worldviews regarding pro-environmental policy and pro-
economic policy. The paper also examines possible relationships between individuals’
worldviews and the level of their support for environmental protection initiatives. The
results suggest that most respondents do not view economic growth and environmental
protection as being mutually exclusive. Forcing respondents to choose one or the other of
these two worldview categories appears to misrepresent individuals’ worldviews. Asking
respondents the dichotomous worldview question also appears to also increase item non-
response. The significant item non-response and the apparent misrepresentation issue
associated with use of the dichotomous worldview question brings into question the
utility of such a question since individuals’ worldviews are a significant predictor of their

support for environmental protection initiatives.

55

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Individuals’ pro-environmental behavior such as solid waste recycling and support for
environmental initiatives, some suggest, originates from individuals’ values and
worldview regarding their relationship with the natural environment (Stern, Dietz, &
Kalof, 1993; Stem, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995). Values and worldviews have been
described as guiding principles that influence people towards particular actions (Petersen,
Shunturov, Janda, Platt, & Weinberger, 2007; Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004; S. H
Schwartz, 1994; Stem, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). Theories originating
from social psychology attempt to explain pro-environmental intent and behavior while
highlighting the role of people’s values and worldview on their pro-environmental
behavior. For example, the norm activation theory (Shalom H. Schwartz, 1977) posits
that, pro-environmental actions result when an individual’s personal moral norm (a
person’s feeling of responsibility) is activated by the belief that environmental conditions
threaten entities they care about. Similarly, the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory(Stem et
al., 1999) asserts that such environmental beliefs emanate from the basic values and
worldviews that people hold. In short, individuals’ values and worldviews appear to play
a key role in shaping pro-environmental behavior. Therefore, accurate measurement and
understanding of the public’s environmental values and worldviews may be helpful in
formulating sound environmental policy, especially policies aimed at encouraging pro-
environmental behavior. With the reliance of political figures and other decision makers
on polling data for formulating policy as well as researchers’ use of such questions to

characterize respondents and their attitudes, it seems imperative for policymakers and

56

others to better understand the environmental values of their constituents before going

forward with policies, expenditures, and hypothesis tests.

One way to help decision makers design and implement successful environmental
policies and programs is to provide them with a better understanding of how people
perceive and understand the interplay and relationship of environmental and economic
policies. It is widely accepted for politicians, marketers, advocates, researchers, and
others to use questions in public opinion polls (surveys) to help them understand public
attitudes, values, and worldviews. For instance, politicians and other policymakers may
rely on a measure of their constituencies’ general environmental concern to help guide
them for such bond issues. Inquiries into individuals’ and groups’ environmental
attitudes and worldviews have typically used survey methods to classify respondents as
either pro-environmental protection or pro-economic growth (Carlson, 2005; Glaser &
Denhardt, 1999). The most typical form of the environmental/economic worldview
question presents potential respondents with a dichotomous choice question that asks
them to select between one alternative favoring environmental protection and another

alternative favoring economic growth (see Figure 3.1).

However, the usefulness of the dichotomous choice worldview questions has not been
thoroughly examined. Some scholars suggest that, forcing respondents to choose
between two policy goals prohibits individuals from indicating a socially acceptable

preference for both goals or some combination of the two (Leiserowitz, Kates, & Parris,

57

2005). Hence, forcing survey participants to self-identify as holding either environmental

protection or economic growth views may not accurately reflect their actual worldview.

 

Here are two statements people sometimes make when discussing the
environment and economic growth. Which of them comes closer to your own
point of view?

A. Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes
slower economic growth and some loss of jobs

B. Economic growth and creating jobs should be the top priority,
even if the environment suffers to some extent

 

 

 

Figure 3.1: European and World Value Survey3Question B008

That is, many individuals may not view the two policy goals as mutually exclusive; they
may see them as complements. Other scholars have suggested that dichotomous choice
questions will result in higher rates of item non-response as a result of respondents who
feel their worldview is not accurately represented in the answer choice set (Ladd and
Bowman, 1995; Dunlap and Rik, 1991). While Nooney et al. (2003) and others (Johnson,
Bowker, & Cordell, 2004) have begun to explore the efficacy of the use of the New
Environmental Paradigm [NEP] and other worldview questions, there seems to have been
no reported study examining how well the typical dichotomous choice
environmental/economic worldview question captures public opinion concerning the

relationship between environmental protection and economic development goals.

 

3 The World Values Survey (WVS) is a global network of social scientists who collect
survey data on the values and beliefs of the general public. in more than 80 societies on
the six inhabited continents. See also, http://www.worldvaluessurvev.org/

58

Therefore, this paper examines how individuals respond to alternative answer formats for
the standard environmental protection or economic growth worldview question.
Furthermore, the paper explores how respondents’ stated environmental worldviews

relate to their likelihood of support for environmental protection initiatives.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Economy versus Environment Context

The natural environment and the overall health of the economy have become prominent
features on the political landscape. While few would dispute that both a growing
economy and a healthy environment are desirable, policymakers often confront choices
about how much to protect citizens and the environment (e.g., through regulatory actions)
and how much to promote economic growth and development. As mentioned previously,
such decisions have often been framed as requiring decisions to be either pro-economic
growth policy or pro-environmental protection thereby polarizing and even ‘demonizing’
those pursuing ‘the other’ objective. That is, so-called “environmentalists” are portrayed
as seeking environmental protection at all costs, willing to sacrifice economic
development and human well-being while so-called “unbridled capitalists” are portrayed
as pursuing economic growth at all costs, including irreversible environmental damage

(Hoffman et al., 1999).

However, empirical evidence suggests that economic growth and environmental

protection may not necessarily be mutually exclusive. For instance, Grossman and

59

Krueger (1995) utilize their environmental Kuznet’s curve to demonstrate that economic
growth may lead to increased levels of environment protection. Likewise, some state-
level studies report positive correlations among state rankings of economic and
environmental well being; that is US. states that do the most to protect their environment
also appear to have the strongest economies (Hall, 1994; Meyer, 1992). Consequently,
some scholars and political leaders (e.g., former President Clinton) have described the
choice between environmental protection and economic growth as a false dichotomy
(Feiock & Stream, 2001; Hoffman et al., 1999; Porter & van der Linde, 1995). Hoffman
et al (1999) describes the relationship between economic and environmental interests as a
‘mixed-motive situation’; neither purely cooperative nor purely competitive. Others have
pointed out that while environmental regulation may deter some types of investment, the
same regulation may encourage other types of investment and innovations that benefit

firms (Feiock and Stream, 2001).

It seems that the assumption that environmental protection must cost jobs and lower
profit has been repeated so often that this schism, despite arguments and evidence to the
contrary, continues to influence public perceptions and attitudes. Because individuals’
beliefs about economics, money, and development appear central to their environmental
undertakings and actions (Hodgkinson & Iness, 2000; O'Connor, Bord, Yamal, &
Wiefek, 2002), it seems important to avoid reinforcing an unsubstantiated dichotomy
between economic and environmental well being. Portraying the two goals as a
dichotomy in public opinion surveys could prove inimical to efforts for garnering support

for important economic and environmental protection initiatives.

60

2.2 Previous Economy versus Environment Survey Research

While sustainable development literature suggests that the purported conflict between the
goals of environmental protection and economic growth is a false dichotomy (Cordero,
Roth, & Silva, 2005; F eiock & Stream, 2001), survey questions soliciting public opinion
continue to reflect a dichotomous relationship between environmental and economic
goals. Typically, environmental and other survey questionnaires present respondents with
a ‘standard’ dichotomous choice question about environmental/economic worldviews;
respondents are asked if they favor environmental protection or economic growth. For
instance, in public opinion polls in the United States, the Gallup Organization often asks
respondents an environmental/economic worldview question with dichotomous response
categories (see link http://www.gallup.com/poll/15820Lpublic-priorities-environment-vs-

economic-growthaspx).

 

The Gallup results have indicated general support for environmental protection over
economic growth among the public until recently. About 65% to 71% of respondents
favored environmental protection during the 19905 but that public support for the
environment seems to be diminishing significantly; perhaps in response to difficult
economic times (Carlson, 2005). In their study to determine community support for
selected local development strategies, Glaser and Denhardt (1999) noted that majority of
respondents tend to favor environmental protection when forced to choose between
environmental protection and economic growth. They reported that, about 60.2% of
respondents assigned greater importance to environmental protection (in their case

curbing water and air pollution) than economic development. The World Values Survey

61

[WVS] uses a very similar dichotomous-response choice question in order to measure
respondents’ environmental/economic worldview. The most recent WVS found that 54
percent of their worldwide sample (56% of G7 countries’ sample) answering the question
selected the response that ‘Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it
causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs’ (World Values Survey, 2009).
However, that same WVS reports that 16.2% of individuals taking the survey in all
participating nations (15.3% in the G7 nations) did not select one of the two answer
choices but rather provided another answer, a ‘don’t know’ response, or simply failed to

provide an answer to the survey item.

While the dichotomous choice environmental/economic worldview question may provide
an avenue for understanding changes in public values about the environment over time,
the appropriateness, efficacy, and usefulness of this dichotomous format question for
assessing a sample populations’ environmental/economic worldview merits inquiry.
Hand and Macheski (2003) argue that the dichotomous response choice question fails to
capture how most individuals think about the relationship between the environment and
the economy by prohibiting respondents from stating their ‘real’ preference for both.
Their study revealed a higher proportion of respondents (84.5%) indicating a preference
for both environment and economy. In another study, nearly three quarters of respondents
held a view that there should not necessarily be a choice between only environmental
protection and economic growth (Ladd & Bowman, 1995). Ladd and Bowman also noted
that public opinion polling that employs dichotomous response choice questions is often

associated with higher percentages of respondents opting for an ‘I don’t know’

62

alternative. Previous research suggests that use of the dichotomous answer set for

environmental/economic worldview questions merits further inquiry.

Survey methodological research provides several possible reasons respondents may
choose to not answer a dichotomous choice question such as the environmental/economic
worldview questions. These possible reasons include a respondent’s lack of knowledge
on the issue in question; ambivalence due to contradictory thoughts or feelings about the
subject matter; a desire for self-image protection and/or satisficing where respondents
deem efforts required to answer the question to be so great and thus choose not to answer
(Groves, Dilman, Eltinge, & Little, 2002; Krosnick, 2002). Non-responses can also result
from respondents’ difficulty in translating their judgment on the issue onto the response
choices offered for a question. Krosnick (2002) explains that, a respondent who has some
information on an issue and generally has an overall neutral orientation towards it, when
asked a question without the neutral response option might refuse to answer because the
answer he or She would like to give has not been conferred legitimacy. In the instance of
environmental/economic worldviews, respondents who view the two policy goals of
environmental protection and economic growth to be complementary, when presented
with a dichotomous response choice may be forced to opt out. The critiques of the
dichotomous response choice question format for environmental/economic worldviews
motivate our examination of the question format to accurately capture the

environmental/economic worldview of respondents.

63

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Research Questions

This paper explores the impact and relevance of providing respondents with a middle
option allowing them to indicate a preference for both economic growth and

environmental protection goals. Specifically, the study addressed the following questions:

1. How do the distributions for the responses “economic growth” and
“environmental protection” of the standard dichotomous choice worldview
question compare with the responses to the same worldview question that also
includes an additional response option indicating preference for both policy

goals?

2. Does presenting the environmental protection-economic growth worldview

question as a dichotomous choice question impact item non-response?

3. Do people’s stated views concerning policy goals of environmental protection
and economic growth significantly relate to their stated level of support for

environmental protection initiatives?

3.2 Study Site
This study was conducted on the campus of Michigan State University [MSU], a large
Tier 1 public university in the Midwest of the United States. The university has a long

tradition of using the research and knowledge it generates to create practical solutions for

64

individuals and communities across Michigan and around the world. The university
community Shares a number of defining characteristics similar to the general population.
The campus community is highly educated, has a broad age range, and has personal
income distribution generally at the low end of the range for students, at the middle to
higher end of the range for staff/faculty. AS a public university, MSU attracts students,
staff, and faculty from diverse ethnicity, socioeconomic status, academic and professional

interests.

3.3 Participants and Sampling Procedure

The university has about 10,000 graduate and professional students, more than 35,000
undergraduates, and about 10,000 faculty and staff. A stratified random sample of 15,652
potential participants was drawn for the university’s three principal constituencies—

students, faculty and staff.

3.4 Survey Design and Implementation

The survey was designed and administered as a web-based instrument. Members of the
study’s target population all have daily access to university-based e-mail/internet and
they are expected to use email/internet resources daily for their study, work, and other
campus-based activities. As part of a larger campus sustainability planning effort, the
multi-sectional survey was constructed to examine campus recycling behavior, recycling
program preferences, and communication strategies. The standard
environmental/economic worldview question was initially included with other items that

sought to help researchers understand the preferences, knowledge and attitudes of the

65

university community. Researchers developed the survey using an iterative process
including key informant interviews and focus group discussions (M. Kaplowitz, Lupi, &
Hoehn, 2004). In pretesting the survey, focus group and individual interview participants
consistently articulated their frustration with the ‘standard’ environmental protection
versus economic growth question. Pretest participants repeatedly asked for some type of
third alternative that would allow them to more accurately express their opinion on the
issue. That feedback provided a catalyst for designing the experiment that is the basis of
this study. Hence, the final web-survey was programmed so that a random 2/3rd of
participants were asked to indicate their environment/economic worldview by responding
to the “standar ” dichotomous choice question (see Figure 3.2) while 1/3rd of
respondents were asked to respond to the same question using an ‘alternative’ three
answer-choice set (see Figure 3.3). Besides the environmental worldview question
(Figure 3.2 and 3.3), all study participants were asked the same substantive questions
about their knowledge and attitudes towards current campus environmental initiatives,

and questions about alternative recycling programs.

66

 

 

Here are two statements people sometimes make when discussing the environment
and economic growth. Which of them comes closer to your own point of view?

A. Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower
economic growth and some loss of jobs

8. Economic growth and creating jobs should be the top priority. even if the
environment suffers to some extent

:IA
”AB

 

 

 

Figure 3.2: ‘Standard” Question-Dichotomous Answer Choices

 

Here are two statements people sometimes make when discussing the environment
and economic growth. Which of them comes closer to your own point of view?

A. Protecting the environment should be given priority. even it it causes slower
economic growth and some loss of jobs

8. Economic growth and creating jobs should be the top priority. even if the
environment suffers to some extent

C. Both
7.’ A
."B
_*C

 

Figure 3.3: “Alternative” Question-Three-Answer Choices

67

 

The survey was implemented in November 2007 following the Dillman Tailored Design
Method (Dillman, 2007). Invitations, follow-up invitations, and final invitations were all
designed following best practice principles and guidelines suggested by Dillman. Data
analyses included computation of the mean response to each survey item, a comparison
of the response distribution and response rates between the two worldview question using
chi square test and regression analyses investigating the relationships between
respondents stated worldview preferences and their level of support for environmental

initiatives.

3.5 Regression Model

A regression model was developed to investigate the impact, if any, that respondents’
environmental/economic worldview preferences and their other characteristics have on
their stated level of support for environmental protection initiatives. First, respondents
were classified into five groups of “worldview” depending on their ‘worldview’ response
and the response treatment to which they were assigned. The name assigned to each
group - Environment(AB), Economy(AB), Environment(ABC), Economy(ABC) and
Both(ABC) - denotes respondents’ ‘answer’ and the answer choice set they received. For
example, individuals coded as Environment(AB) selected environmental protection when
asked the worldview question that had two responses option (response treatment AB).
The groups were then coded for the regression analysis. The “Both(ABC)”
response/worldview category was dropped from the regression and thus serves as the
baseline worldview category against which regression results can be interpreted. The

regression model used for the analyses is:

68

EPI; = I30 + aiEnv(AB) + azEnv(ABC) + or;Econ(AB) +a4Econ(ABC) + BIPSE + BZKEB

+ B3REI+ B4SCI + BsAge + BsGender + 07Income + 8i

where the environmental protection index [EPI, explained below] is the dependent
variable and the independent variables include five worldview groups, perceived self-
efficacy [PSE], knowledge of environmental benefits [KEB], receptivity to
environmental information [REI], satisfaction with current environmental initiatives

[SCI], age, gender and income.

3.5.1 Environmental Protection Index [EPI]

Participants’ support for environmental protection initiatives was measured using a
simplified version of the Inglehart (1995) environmental protection index [EPI], a
measure of support for environmental undertakings. Respondents were asked to use a
five-point scale (1=‘strongly disagree’ to 5= ‘strongly agree’) to indicate their level of
agreement with the following three statements: 1) I would be willing to give part of my
income if I were sure that the money would be used to prevent environmental pollution;
2) The government should reduce environmental pollution, but it shouldn ’t cost me any
money; and 3) Protecting the environment and fighting pollution is less urgent than often
suggested. The EPI was computed as a sum of the responses of these three items
subsequently enabling respondents to be classified as ‘high,’ ‘neutral,’ or ‘low,’
supporters of environmental protection efforts. The three items were intercorrelated,

yielding a Cronbach alpha of 0.54 in the reliability analysis.

69

3.5.2 Perceived Self-Efficacy [PSE]

Bandura’s (1977) theory of self efficacy suggests that people’s ability to successfully
execute an action is determined by their belief in their ability to do so. That is, if people
have a strong belief in their abilities to effect changes in the world around them, they will
develop more effective coping strategies and higher levels of achievements than those
who do not. Heath and Gifford (2006) go on to suggest that the belief that the things one
does makes a difference is a prerequisite for the willingness of an individual to initiate
any personal action. These self-efficacy theories suggest that individual’s with strong
beliefs in their ability to effect positive environmental change will be more willing to
support pro-environmental initiatives. The survey design allowed for respondents’
perceived self-efficacy [PSE] to be measured using respondents answers on a five—point
Likert-type scale (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’) indicting their level of
agreement with following statement: If I recycle at Michigan State University, it has a
positive effect on the environment. A higher level of agreement was interpreted as

denoting a higher level of perceived self-efficacy.

3.5.3 Knowledge of Environmental Consequences/Benefits of Action [KEB]

Environmental knowledge consists of factual information people possess concerning the
state of the environment and the influence of human actions on the environment (Arcury
& Johnson, 1987). It is generally believed that increased environmental knowledge will
result in increased environmental concern and, in conjunction with knowledge of pro-

environmental strategies, may be translated into appropriate pro-environmental

70

behavior(Bradley, Waliczek, & Zajicek, 1999).Indeed, previous studies have identified
environmental knowledge as a significant predictor of pro-environmental intent and
behavior (Barr, Nicholas, & Gilg, 2003; Vining & Ebreo, 1990).These studies suggest
that if people become more knowledgeable about environmental problems then they will
be more motivated to act in an environmentally beneficial ways as well as be more
inclined to support environmental protection policies. Therefore, we hypothesized that
respondents’ support for environmental protection initiatives [EPI] would increase as
respondents’ knowledge of the environmental benefits increased To be able to test this,
we asked survey respondents to rate their knowledge of the environmental benefits of
recycling using a five-point Likert-type scale and included this knowledge of

environmental consequence variable in our model.

3.5.4 Receptivity to Environmental Information [REI]

Another facet that complements individuals’ extant knowledge of environmental issues is
the level of their receptivity to new or additional environmental information. Stern et al.
(1995) noted that values and worldviews act as filters for new information so that
congruent attitudes and beliefs are more likely to emerge. People tend to gravitate
towards and be more receptive to information that is consistent with their pre-existing
values and beliefs. In line with this, several studies have found that individuals with a
favorable view of recycling were more likely to seek information about the environment
(Granzin and Olsen, 1991; Jennings 2004). Therefore, we hypothesized that individuals
indicating higher degrees of receptivity to environmental information would be more

supportive, all else equal, of environmental protection initiatives. To assess survey

71

respondents’ willingness to receive environmental (recycling) information, the survey
asked them to use a five-point scale to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with
the following statements: “I would like to learn more about the benefits of recycling,”
and “1 would like more information on how to recycle materials properly.” Responses to
these two statements were subsequently combined into an REI index with a Cronbach

alpha of 0.78.

3.5.5 Satisfaction with Current Environmental Initiatives [SCI]

Individuals’ satisfaction with prevailing environmental conditions and initiatives has
been asserted as a factor influencing individuals’ support for proposed environmental
protection. Prester et al. (1987) observed that individuals’ dissatisfaction with the
conditions of the environment and their expectation of positive changes in the quality of
their environment increased their subsequent level of participation in environmental
initiatives including activism (writing protest letters, signing petitions, taking part in
demonstrations, attending public information meetings). Years later, Pelletier et al.
(1996) used an environmental satisfaction scale to examine the role of respondents’
satisfaction with local environmental conditions and governmental environmental policy
as a predictor of subsequent pro-environmental behavior. Pelletier et al. reported that
higher levels of satisfaction with environmental conditions seemed to be associated with
a lower frequency of providing financial support to pro-environmental groups and a
lower frequency of voting for a particular political party because of its environmental

stance. At the same time, they found that other pro-environmental initiatives--signing

72

petitions, involvement with an environmental group and writing letters of complaint to
companies--decreased as satisfaction with the environment increased. Thus, we
hypothesized that current individuals’ willingness to support additional environmental
protection efforts would decrease as their level of satisfaction increased for current
environmental programs. To measure respondents’ level of satisfaction with current
environmental programming, they were asked to indicate their level of agreement with
the statement ‘I am satisfied with the current MS U recycling program’ using a five-point

scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

3.5.6 Demographics

Demographic characteristics of respondents such as gender, age and income were also
collected and used in this study. A number of previous studies have explored the role of
demographic characteristics on environmentally responsible behavior. Evidence of the
influence of such demographic characteristics on respondents’ environmental concern has
been equivocal. Some studies indicate a positive association between income, age and
gender on environmental concern while others Show a negative or weak associations
(Oskamp et al., 1991; Vining & Ebreo, 1990). Recently, Gelissen (2007) found
individuals’ willingness to make financial sacrifices to support environmental protection
was positively related to income but negatively related to age. O’Connor et al. (2002)
found gender to be irrelevant in separating emission reduction supporters from non-

supporters.

73

4.0 RESULTS
This section presents results from the comparison of response distributions and item non-
response rates between the two environment/economy worldview questions and

regression analyses aimed at answering the research questions.

4.1 Response Rates

In total, 15,652 survey invitations were sent to 12,108 students, 1,481 faculty and 2,063
staff (about 30 percent of the MSU community). Of those invitations, 182 were
determined to have been sent to incorrect/ineligible addressees. At the close of the
survey, 3922 individuals had participated in the study resulting in an overall American
Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) minimum response rate (RRl) for the
study of 24.9 percent (AAPOR, 2006) with response rate variations across the three
groups. Staff responded at a higher rate (42.8%) than faculty (38.0%) and students
(20.2%). These response rates were significantly different across students, faculty, and
staff groups [x2(2,n=15652)=630.85, p<0.001]. The gender of respondents was
approximately 58% females and 42% male varying only slightly from overall university
demographics; a higher proportion of staff (67%) and students (57%) respondents were
female and majority of faculty respondents were male (59%), which also roughly mirrors

the demographics of the university community.

74

4.1.1 Worldview Question Non-Response

The literature suggests that a question that forces survey participants to make a choice
between environmental protection and economic growth may be associated with higher
item non-response rates (Dunlap & Rik, 1991; Ladd & Bowman, 1995). To test this, we
compared the item non-response for the two versions of the environmental/economic
worldview question-the standard version (AB) and the revised version (ABC) (See
Figures 3.3 and 3.4). Overall, 3922 respondents were randomly assigned to one of the
two versions of the worldview question-2625 participants to response treatment AB and
1297 participants to response treatment ABC". A total of 140 participants assigned to
treatment AB and 66 participants assigned to treatment ABC started but did not finish the
survey (about 5% of participants assigned to each treatment). These 206 potential
respondents were excluded from the item non-response rate calculations. As Table 3.1
shows, the aggregate item non-response rate for the worldview question is 1.7%.
However, the item non-response for treatment AB was statistically greater (2.3%) than
that of treatment ABC (0.6%)(x2(1, 3716)=14.0, p<0.001). This finding supports the
hypothesis that not offering potential respondents a response choice ‘between’ or other
than exclusive environmental protection or economic growth will result in increased item

non-response.

 

4 . . .

The proportionate but unequal assrgnment of respondents to the question treatment
groups was used to ensure comparability of results from WVS and Gallup survey. All
statistical tests reported took the disproportionate assignment to the treatment groups into
account.

75

 

Table 3.1 Worldview Item Non-Response

 

Question Total Complete RR8 Non-response NRR* *
Treatment
AB 2485 2429 97.7% 56 2.3%
ABC 1231 1224 99.4% 7 0.6%
Total 3716 3653 98.3% 63 1.7%

 

8AAPOR Minimum Response Rate (RROl)
** Non-response Rates, statistically different at 99% level, (x20, 3716)=14.0, p<0.001)

4.2 Environmental/Economic Worldview

The response distribution for the two treatments AB and ABC is presented in Figure 3.4.
The results reveal respondents’ selection of the environmental protection goal (73.5%)
more often than the economic growth goal (26.5%) when faced with a dichotomous
choice between those two policy goals. However, such a strong selection of the
environmental protection goals was not evident when participants were offered the third
response option of “both.” For those receiving response treatment ABC, most
respondents indicated their preference for both policy goals (62%) with less than a third
(30%) selecting environmental protection and less than one-tenth (8%) of respondents
selecting economic growth as the preferred policy goal. That is, a majority of the
respondents in the ABC treatment do. not seem to view the goals of environmental

protection and economic growth as mutually exclusive.

76

80.00% - »
73.50%
70.00% .. ..
62.00%
60.00%

50.00%

40.00% > ' ‘ " ' I Response treatment AB

30.00%
30.00% . .. ”-50% . ‘ Response treatment ABC

20.00% ‘

  
 

8.00%
10.00% '7 ‘

0.0096
Environment(A) Both(C) Economy(B)

Figure 3.4: Response Distribution by Response Treatment

4.3 Worldview and Environmental Protection Index

Table 3.2 presents the results of the regression analysis investigating the impact of
individual environment/economic worldview on their support for environmental
protection initiatives. The reported coefficients of the worldview categories are the
relative differences from the baseline point. For instance, the coefficient for
Environment(ABC) indicates a higher score on EPI relative to Both(ABC) while that of

Economic(ABC) suggest a lower level of support relative to Both(ABC).

In general, the results indicate that the environmental/economic worldview of participants
is predictive of their level of support for environmental protection initiatives. The overall
model was able to account for about 25.2% of the variance in EPI,F(11, 3459)=106.99,

p<0.001. About half of this explained variance (13%) was attributed to respondents’

77

worldviews. As expected, individuals who support environmental protection “even if it
causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs” were more likely to support
environmental protection initiatives than those with economic growth worldviews “even
if the environment suffers to some extent.” Respondents in the Environment (ABC)
group (‘Strong environment group’) were the most supporters of environmental initiatives

while those in the Economic (ABC), the ‘strong economy group’ were least supportive.

The results also revealed significant differences among the worldview groups in their
support for environmental protection initiatives. In the case of response treatment ABC,
the results indicate a significant decrease in EPI score for respondents with pro-economic
worldview (Economic ABC) relative to those favoring both policy goals [Both (ABC)] as
depicted by their negative regression coefficient (Table 3.2). On the other hand,
respondents evidencing a pro-environmental worldview (Environment ABC) were
associated with a significantly higher EPI scores compared with those in Both (ABC).
Further analysis revealed that respondent’s support for environmental initiatives among
the pro-economic and pro-environment group in the standard dichotomous response
question (Treatment AB) is significantly different from their counterparts who responded
to treatment ABC. Perhaps, by presenting respondents with the dichotomous question,
some respondents who would have indicated a preference for ‘both’ are forced into either
category thereby moderating the resulting impact of each worldview category on the level

of support for environmental initiatives.

78

.‘u:.. ...r... -- . =12:-
-
.
. _ _ 'l

 

 

Table 3.2 Results for respondents’ environmental protection index regressed on
worldviews, perceived efficacy, receptivity to information, satisfaction with current
initiatives, and environmental knowledge.

 

 

 

Independent variables [3 Std. error t
WorldviewI

Constant 5.157 .314 16.405***
Environment(ABCf 1.002 .138 7.255***
Environment(AB)b .759 .093 8,146* * *
Economics(ABC)‘ -1.446 .232 -6.224***
Economic(AB)d -.784 .1 15 6844*“.
Perceived self efficacy [PSE] .514 .05 5 9276* :1: :1:
Knowledge Environmental Benefit [KEB] .342 .039 8658* * *
Receptivity to information [REI] .242 .023 10.709* * *
Satisfaction w/Current Initiative [SCI] -.342 .039 -8,886* * *
Average income 7.256E-6 .000 5 .779* * *
Gender .087 .073 1.196
Age 7.644E-5 .004 .020

 

Adjusted R2 = 25.2 *** p< 0.001, *"‘p< 0.05

iWorldview variables represent discrete treatment and response options.
AB indicates a treatment providing two answer choices--environment and economy.
ABC indicates a treatment providing three answer choices--environment, economy,
and both, where Both(ABC) is the baseline against which the other worldview
variables are measured.

. . . b . . .
lWorldvrew groups wrth drfferent letters (a, ,c) are statrstrcally drfferent from each other
at the 95% level. That is, the two environment treatments, while different from each
other, differ from Both and the two economic treatments.

79

 

4.4 Other Determinants of Support for Environmental Protection

Results of the relative effect of respondents’ perceived self-efficacy [PSE], knowledge of
environmental benefits [KEB], receptivity to environmental information [REI],
satisfaction of existing environmental initiatives [SCI], and their demographic variables
on their level of support of environmental protection initiatives is also presented in Table
3.2. Respondents’ PSE, KEB, RBI, and their SCI significantly influenced their support
for environmental initiatives in the hypothesized direction. Higher levels of PSE had a
significant and positive relationship with individuals’ level of support for environmental
protection. Likewise, respondents’ KEB as well as their REI were sig nificantly and
positively associated with respondents’ higher levels of support for environmental
protection. At the same time, increasing SCI was negatively associated with support for
environmental initiatives. That is, respondents that are very satisfied with the status quo
of environmental protection were less likely to desire increased environmental protection
undertakings. Besides participants’ economic/environment worldview, their PSE was the
strongest predictor of EPI. A unit change in respondent’s PSE score was associated with
a greater change in EPI score ([3: .514 p<0.001) than a unit change in SCI (B= -.342
p<0.001), KEB (B= .342 p<0.001) and RC1 ([3: .242 p<0.001). For the demographic
characteristics, only income (B=7.256 E-6 P<0.001) was a Significant explanatory

variable for increased support for environmental initiatives.

80

 

5.0 Discussion

The reported results examined a diverse university community’s environmental values,
attitudes, and beliefs as well as its stated views on the policy goals of environmental
protection and economic growth. The results suggest some merit in providing
respondents with at least a middle option when assessing their environment/economic
worldview. First, the observed differences in response distribution between the standard
dichotomous response choice question and the alternative question that had an option to
indicate a preference for both suggests researchers risk overestimating the actual
economic/environment worldview of respondents by employing the dichotomous
response choice question. The results Show that, a majority of respondents selected some
mid point between all environmental protection and all economic growth when given a
chance rather than the overwhelming majority who selected environmental protection
when only given dichotomous response choices. Thus, decisions based on the results of
the dichotomous response choice question concerning environmental and economic
policy preferences will fail to account for the heterogeneity of respondents’

environmental/economic worldview.

Moreover, as the subsequent analysis reveal, the alternative question allowed for a self-
identification of a large group of respondents that has significantly different policy
preferences and attitudes from the two proffered, mutually exclusive worldviews.
However, by forcing respondents into either of the two goals by way of the standard

dichotomous response question, this distinct middle category of respondents with

81

different policy preference is not captured leading to a oversimplified estimate of
respondents worldview. The finding that those respondents expressing a pro-economic
[pro-environment] view in response treatment AB differed in their policy preferences, [as
measured by their EPI] from those evidencing similar view in response treatment ABC

evidences this potential oversimplified estimation.

These findings have useful implications for environmental policy formulation. They
suggest that policymakers and elected officials basing their political decisions on the
standard dichotomous response choice may end up with inaccurate information about
their constituents’ true policy priorities. From the results of the standard dichotomous
question, policymakers would have concluded that about two-thirds of their constituents
would support/prefer environmental regulatory measures over? economic development
programs while in fact their constituents are more heterogeneous, with majority equally
favorable to both policies. In doing so, policymakers and elected officials could be
misled to overemphasize environmental protective measures to the detriment of economic

growth, while their constituents would prefer a balance between the two goals.

Additionally, the public in states across the United States has been asked by policymakers
to consider financing through bond issues important environmental protection activities.
Typically, these bond issues require a majority vote in a state-wide ballot to pass
measures to raise funds to protect wildlife habitat, restore fisheries, etc. The results of our
study highlight the potential pitfall of relying on the standard dichotomous environmental

value question for gauging public support. That is, our results show how a vast majority

82

 

of support (74%) expressed in the dichotomous choice answer format might mask an
underlying support that may well be less than half of that (30%). In other words,
concluding that an overwhelming majority of the public will vote to support such bond
issue as indicated by the results of dichotomous response choice format will be an

overstatement of the public’s support.

Furthermore, in line with previous research (Dunlap & Rik, 1991; Ladd & Bowman,
1995) the use of an additional response category, alternative response treatment (ABC),
also resulted in a decreased item non-response rate (as compared to the standard response
rate version of the question). While a host of factors may account for item non-response
(See Groves et al., 2002), in our study, all of those factors as well as others were held
constant. Perhaps, in line with Krosnick (2002), respondents who neither identified with
the exclusive pro-economic or pro-environment worldview chose to opt out or
respondents who did not see environmental and economic policy goals as mutually

exclusive opted out as well.

The results also highlight the relative importance of respondents’ worldview and other
personal characteristics such as their perceived self-efficacy, environmental knowledge
and satisfaction with the current environmental initiatives as predictors of pro-
environmental intent. Like previous studies (Stern et al., 1999; Stem et al., 1995),
respondents worldview was indicative of their level of support for environmental
initiatives. Participants holding pro-environment worldview (Environment AB and

Environment ABC) were more likely supporters than those with pro-economic

83

worldview. Also, as hypothesized, participants levels of support for environmental
protection initiatives was positively associated with their PES, KEB, RBI and income
while negatively related to SCI. These observed relationships could be explained by the
nature of environmental problems. Perhaps given the diffused and seemingly distant
nature of environmental problems, which often require several actors to address,
individuals belief in their ability to make significant contributions [as captured by the
PES] was essential to motivate any kind of support. Such beliefs are informed, in part, by
a basic understanding of why, how and what regarding the said environmental problems
(Barr et al., 2003; F012, 1999; McDonald & Oates, 2003; Tucker, 1999). Thus,
individuals with high levels of PBS, KEB and REI could have been more motivated to
support environmental initiatives. Similarly, in concert with Pelletier et al. (1996)
findings, those who are satisfied with current environmental initiatives will be less
motivated to support additional efforts towards environmental protection. Although often
neglected when researchers examine determinants of environmental concern and
behavior, our results suggest that individuals’ satisfaction with prevailing environmental

conditions and initiatives may be a fruitful predictor of pro-environmental intents.

Generally, the demographic variables of age and gender were not significant predictors of
support for environmental protection. This could be attributed to a widespread
environmental concern within our population. Perhaps, by virtue of their relatively high
educational levels, participants may have been exposed to a wide range of environmental
information, which possibly could induce some degree of environmental concern across

the age groups and gender. The insignificant effect of gender could be because the

84

behavior considered, support for environmental initiatives, poses no direct risk to
participants. On the other hand, the marginal effect of income could be explained by the
items in the EPI index, which included items assessing participants’ willingness to make
financial sacrifices in favor of the environment. Since willingness to make financial
sacrifice is dependent on one’s ability to pay, an income effect on EPI is understandable

for our population with significant differences in income.

6.0 Conclusion

An accurate measurement and understanding of the public’s values, attitudes and beliefs
is essential to formulating sound environmental policy. It is in this light that we have
examined the efficacy of the dichotomous response choice question to capture a diverse
campus populations’ environment/economic worldview. Specifically, we have examined
responses to the standard dichotomous response choice question and an alternative
question that allows for a preference for both goals as well as how the stated-worldview

preferences relates to their support for environmental protection initiatives.

The results and analysis of the two response-options versions of the worldview question
revealed that important information may be missing for a significant number of
respondents when they only have two answer choices. It suggests that individual’s
economic/environmental worldview is more heterogeneous than the two proffered
mutually exclusive categories represented by the dichotomous response question.

Therefore, forcing respondents into one of the two categories by way of the dichotomous

85

 

response choice question will lead researchers to overestimate respondents’ worldview.
Moreover, doing so could potentially cause those respondents who may view the
relationship as complementary to not answer the survey question. These findings suggest
merits in providing respondents with a third or more response choices in questions

soliciting the public’s environmental/economic worldviews.

86

References

Arcury, T. A., & Johnson, T. P. (1987). Public environmental knowledge: A statewide
survey. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(4), 3 1-3 7.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Barr, S. F., Nicholas, J., & Gilg, A. W. (2003). Attitudes towards recycling household
waste in Exeter, Devon: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Local Environment,
8(4), 407-421.

Bradley, J. C., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (1999). Relationship Between
Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Attitude of High School Students. Journal
of Environmental Education, 3 0(5pp).

Carlson, D. K. (2005). Public priorities: Environment and economic growth. The Gallup
poll Tuesday briefing, 9-10 (pp. Retrieved June 22, 2009 from Research Library Core.
(Document ID: 863754691).).

Cordero, R. R., Roth, P., & Silva, L. D. (2005). Economic Growth or Environmental
Protection? The False Dilemma of The Latin-American Countries. Environmental
Science and Policy, 8, 392-398.

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: the tailored desing method (Second
ed.): John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Dunlap, R. E., & Rik, S. (1991). The polls-poll trends: Environmental problems and
protection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 651-658.

Feiock, R. C., & Stream, C. (2001). Environmental protection versus economic
development: A false trade-off? Public Administration Review, 61(3), 313-321.

Folz, D. H. (1999). Municipal recycling performance: A public sector environmental
success story. . Public Admistration Review, 86(4), 971-984.

Gallup. (2009). Public priorities: Environment vs economic growth. Retrieved October
21, 2009, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/15820/public-priorities-environment-vs-

economic-growthaspx

Gebben, D. (2008). Attribute based modelling of recycling preferences at Michigan State
University. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Gelissen, J. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A
multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior, 39(3), 392-415.

87

Glaser, M. A., & Denhardt, R. B. (1999). Economic and environmental concerns and
local development policy: tourism from the perspective of the 'host population'. Public
Works Management and Policy, 3(3), 209-223.

Granzin, K. L., & Olsen, J. E. (1991). Characterizing participants in activities protecting
the environment: a focus on donating, recycling and conservation behavior. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 1-27.

Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(2), 353-3 77.

Groves, R. M., Dilman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L., & Little, R. J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Survey
nonresponse. New York, NY: John Wiley & sons inc.

Hand, C. M., & Macheski, G. (2003). Environment-economy trade-offs and forest
environmentalism, Electronic Green Journal (Vol. 1, pp. 1-14).

Hall, B. (1994). Gold and green. Durham, NC: Institute for Southern Studies.

Hansen, L. T., Olson, L., Kerr, J., McMellen, C., Kaplowitz, M., & Thorp, L. (2008).
Recycling attitudes and behaviors on a college campus: Use of qualitative methodology

in a mixed-methods study. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research, 2, 173-
182.

Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006). F rec-market ideology and environmental degradation: a
case of belief in global climate change Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 48-71.

Hodgkinson, S. P., & Iness, J. M. (2000). The prediction of ecological and environmental
belief systems: The differential contribution of social conservatism and beliefs about
money. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 285-294.

Hoffman, A. J ., Gillespie, J. J ., Moore, D. A., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Thompson, L. L., &

Bazerman, M. H. (1999). A mixed-motive perspective on the economic versus
environment debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(8), 1254-1276.

Jennings, M. E. (2004). An instrument to measure the recycling attitudes and beliefs of
Undergraduate Students at a Large Northeastern University. Online submission,
Education Resources Information Center, 22.

Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. K. (2004). Ethnic variation in
environmental belief and behavior: An examination of the the New Ecological Paradigm
in a social pschological context Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 157-186.

Kaplowitz, M., Lupi, F ., & Hoehn, J. P. (2004). Multiple-methods for developing and
evaluating a stated choice survey to value wetlands. In S. Pressor, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P.

88

Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin & E. Singer (Eds), Methods for Testing and
Evaluating Survey Questionnaire (pp. 503-524). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Krosnick, J. A. (2002). The causes of no-opinion responses to attitude measures in
surveys: They are rarely what they appear to be. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dilman, J. L.
Eltinge & R. J. A. Little (Eds), Survey Nonresponse (pp. 87-100). New York: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.

Ladd, E. C., & Bowman, K. H. (1995). Attitudes toward the environment: twenty-five
years after Earth Day. In American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (Ed.).
Washington, DC: AEI press.

Leiserowitz, A. A., Kates, R. W., & Parris, T. M. (2005). Do global attitudes and
behavior support sustainable development? Environment, 47(9), 23-38.

McDonald, S., & Oates, C. (2003). Reasons for non-participation in a kerbside recycling
scheme. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 39, 369-3 85.

Meyer, S. M. (1992). Environmentalism and economic prosperity: Testing the
environmental impact hypothesis. Cambridge, MA.

Nooney, J. G., Woodrum, E., Hoban, T. J., & Clifford, W. B. (2003). Environmental
worldview and behavior: Consequences of dimensionality in a survey of North
Carolinians. Environment and Behavior, 35(6), 763-783.

O'Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., Yamal, B., & Wiefek, N. (2002). Who wants to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions? Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 1-17.

Oskamp, S., Harrington, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Sherwood, D. L., Okuda, S. M., & C, S.
D. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior,
24(3), 494-519.

Pelletier, L. G., Legault, L. R., & Tuson, K. M. (1996). The environmental satisfaction
scale: A measure of satisfaction with local environmental conditions and government
environmental policies. Environment and Behavior, 28, 5-26.

Petersen, J. E., Shunturov, V., Janda, K., Platt, G., & Weinberger, K. (2007). Dormitory
residents reduce electricity consumption when exposed to real-time visual feedback and
incentives. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(1), 16-33.

Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, Environmental Concern and

Environmental Behavior: A Study into Household Energy Use. Environment and
Behavior, 36(1), 70-93.

89

Porter, M., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Towards a new conception of the environment-
competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97-118.

Prester, G., Rohrmann, B., & Schellharnmer, E. (1987). Environmental evaluations and
participation activities: A social psychological field study. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 17(9), 751-787

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative Influences on Altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221-279). New York:
Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of
human values? in Schultz, P. W., Zelezny, L., 2003. Refiaming environmental Message to
be Congruent wit American Values. Research in Ecology. 10, 126—136.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-
Norrn Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human
Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender and environmental
concern Environment and Behavior, 25 , 322-348.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs and pro-
environmental action: Attitude formation towards emergent attitude objects Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25(18), 1611-1636.

Tucker, P. (1999). A survey of attitudes and barriers to kerbside recycling. Environmental
and Waste Management, 2(1).

Vining, J ., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and
nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior, 22(1), 55-73.

World Values Survey. (2009). The world's most comprehensive investigation of political

and sociocultural change. Retrieved 6/6/2009, 2009, from
http://www.worldvaluessurveyorg/

90

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION
The success of campus sustainability efforts, such as campus solid waste recycling
programs requires sustained participation of university community members in pro-
environmental behavior. It is therefore essential to design and implement strategies that
will minimize the barriers to recycling and promote greater levels of participation. Such
strategies may benefit from improved modes of communication as well as a better
understanding of potential participants’ worldviews. The first reported research project
focused on examining the relative attractiveness and perceived efficacy of available
communication media as well as the information needs of the three principal campus
constituencies. The results provide useful insights, which can help university
administrators design an effective communication strategy for a new recycling program.
While the results and the resulting recommendations apply directly to recycling at MSU,
the findings may be useful to decision makers and researchers in other settings,
particularly those developing policies and programs that integrate, improve, and

contextualize environmental education for varied constituencies.

First, the communication study revealed recycling knowledge gaps that could potentially
inhibit recycling participation. The results show that respondents have a general lack of
knowledge of what to recycle, where to recycle and how to recycle. While knowledge
may not be a sole determinant of recycling participation, the literature reports of increases
in recycling participation when publicity efforts has focused on where, what and how to

recycle (DoValle, et al., 2004, F012, 1999, Kelly, et al., 2006, McDonald and Oates, 2003,

91

Tucker, 1999). It is therefore important for program implementers to first focus on
addressing these knowledge gaps among their target populations. Besides, educational
efforts, a possible way to address the knowledge gaps is to improve recycling logistics
such as recycling bins at convenient locations for stakeholders. This will not only help
improve the knowledge gaps associated with where to recycle but also increase the

overall convenience of the recycling program.

Secondly, the findings from the communication study highlight the need for program
implementers to differentiate educational program characteristics based on target
audience. The results revealed significant differences in preference for and perceived
effectiveness of proposed communication media among the three stakeholders. For
instance, while students highly favored promotional campaigns to promote recycling
participation, faculty and staffs prefer personal contact. This suggests that no single mode
of communication will be effective in reaching out to all stakeholders. Therefore,
proposed publicity approaches will need to differentiate their mode of delivery based on
the target audience. The results also underscore the need for program designs to actively
seek the input of target populations. Without a proactive approach to garner stakeholder’s
input, program implementers will invariably fail to recognize any differences in
communication pattern. Failure to account for difference between groups of stakeholders

could affect the overall effectiveness of their communication strategies.

Given the important role stakeholders’ views play in environmental policy/program

design and success, an accurate measurement and understanding of such views and

92

concern is critical. The second reported research project thus sought to better understand
the appropriateness of using the ‘standard’ dichotomous answer choice format which has
been widely used in eliciting the environmental/economic worldview of respondents. The
results suggest that individual economic/environment worldview is an important
determinant of their support for environmental initiatives. This finding underscores the
importance of accurately measuring/understanding peoples’ environmental/economic
worldview. Efforts to better measure respondents ‘true’ worldviews as they relate to
prioritizing economic growth and/or environmental protection is an important area of
scholarly activity which can aid in advancing the agenda towards pro-environmental

behavior and sustainable development.

Furthermore, the study revealed that, environment/economic worldviews are more
heterogeneous than the results of worldview questions with mutually exclusive
dichotomous response categories may suggest. The use of the dichotomous response
choice question, which forces respondents to choose between either prioritizing economic
growth or environmental protection, may not accurately capture the worldview of many
respondents. Our results show that the use of the dichotomous choice question may lead
to an overestimate/underestimate of respondents’ worldviews and provide policymakers
with inaccurate information. Similarly, the increased item non-response to worldview

questions with only two choices may also erroneously inflate results.

The results from this study suggest that an alternative approach in eliciting environment

/economic worldviews iS to provide respondents with a continuum of choices. This study

93

suggests that using a worldview question with a third answer option (e.g., “both”) would
be a better measure of respondents’ actual worldview than the typical dichotomous
response choice worldview question. This begs the question of whether increasing the
number of choices or assessing individual worldview in a continuum could further
improve the worldview measure. Future research should investigate this effect. For
instance, individual environment/economic worldview could be measured on a five point
Likert scale and the result compared with that of three response choices used in this
study, within the same population. It will also be interesting to know how individual
stated environmental/economic worldview affects their level of support for specific
environmental initiatives. Support for different environmental initiatives will elicit
different levels of efforts and resources from individuals. Thus, it could be argued that
regardless of one’s environment/economic worldview, an individual level of support for
initiatives requiring lesser resource commitments such as participation in a recycling
program may differ from those requiring relatively greater commitments and somewhat
operationalize the environment-economic tension such as increases in taxes to protect

wetlands.

In addition, while revealing some important determinants of individual support for
environmental initiatives, the model explained only 25% of the variance in the support
for environmental initiatives. Future studies should therefore consider refining the model
to increase its predictive power. One way is to refine the measures used to assess
participants’ personal variables such as environmental knowledge. Considering the

multifaceted nature of the independent variables, it is difficult to adequately measure

94

them in a Single survey statement. Future studies should consider using multiple survey
questions for each variable to help improve on their measure. Other potential predictor
variables such as social norms could also be included in the model to improve its

prediction.

Furthermore, although the communication study generally depicts a lack of knowledge
among participants in certain aspects of the recycling program, it does not clearly show
how this lack of knowledge actually affects their participation in the program.
Understanding how each of these knowledge areas affect subjects participation will
provide a more compelling argument regarding the knowledge gaps publicity campaign
should address. The study could further be developed to include this research component
to help refine the recommendations. In addition, the broad classification of the available
publicity media into five categories reduces the specificity of recommendations regarding
the choice of publicity media. For instance, media ads included items such as billboards,
radio Spots, signs at athletic events and television commercials. The items within any
single category may vary in their usefulness and effectiveness to reach out to participants.
This forces program implementers to firrther decide on which media to employ within

each broad category. Future research could thus make use of a more narrow and specific

grouping.

Nevertheless, valuable information has been learned. These studies have helped identify

possible knowledge barriers that could prevent the success of recycling programs, the

types of publicity media that could effectively deliver recycling information, and the need

95

to differentiate educational program characteristics based on target audience. It has also
revealed potentially useful determinants of support for environmental initiatives while
providing a foundation for further research into the efficacy of worldview measures

employing dichotomous response choices to accurately capture individuals view.

96

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Select Survey Questions

 

  

'. .'.-'.1.

N
()1

 

 

24.

myth Survey Page I ofl

3} 22. How knowled eable are you about the range of paper products that may be
' d 1‘

 

recycle a
Not At All Somewhat Ve

Knowled eable Knowled eable Knowled eable

   

 

 

. How knowledgeable are you about the range of environmental benefits associated

with recycling?

 

Not At All Somewhat Ve
Knowled eable Knowled eable Knowled eable

   

 

 

How knowledgeable are you about the different places on campus where you can
recycle liquid and food containers (e.g. plastic bottles, and cans)?

 

Not At All Somewhat Ve
Knowled eable Knowled eable Knowle eable

     

 

 

. How knowledgeable are you about the ran e of waste-reduction strategies that you,

 

   
    

as an individual, can take part in on the campus?
Not At All Somewhat
Knowled eable Knowledgeable

 

 

 

. Which of the following, if any, do you think would increase recycling on campus the
most?

More recycling containers around campus

f Competitions between the different colleges
Competitions between different buildings

’ Peers and colleagues that regularly recycle
Regular updates and tips on the program
Other:

Back Next .‘ ‘

Restartthesuryey

 

[I

97

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1 of 1
We just have three more pages for you.

35. Pu bllclty Campaigns

.AQ
\\
e00
0
f
0 A
S 6" ‘53 as?

How effective do you think the following publicity campaigns A 4s 6‘ {9 (x
will be? A”

Posters and flyers around campus, on bulletin
P0519” boards, in student mail. etc.

. State News ads. billboards, radio spots. signs at
Media Ads athletic events. and campus TV commercials.

Technology Text messaging, You Tube, My Space and
Publicity Facebook pages, websites, and e-mail messages.

Personal People, like mentors and building staff, to explain the
Contact new program in hall and department meetings.

Recycling contests, competitions among
Promotions colleges, departments, or residence halls, t-shirt
giveaways, etc.

 

. Back Next

Restart the sum

 

 

98

 

Page 1 of 1

There is one more page after this.

e
05:
3..
($00 8’2. o
4’ «P 3’
0‘ ox" ‘9
To get a better idea of the -community’e attitudes about 5* 1?” .5 o 0.3%
recycling and environmental policy, we would like to know how 9° , ”'53 as (SW 9
strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements? ‘0‘ 0‘ ~2- V 0?

 

36. I am very satisfied with the current recycling program at—

 

 

lfl recycle a- it has a positive effect on the campus
' environment.

(A)
V

 

38. In general, it takes a lot of time and effort to recycle at-

 

t8

. I would like to learn more about the benefits of recycling.

 

8

I would like more information on how to recycle materials
' properly at-

 

I would give part of my income lfl was certain that the money
' would be used to prevent environmenlal pollution.

A
_a

 

The government should reduce environmental pollution. but it
‘ should not cost me any money.

a

 

The U.S. cannot solve is environmental problems by itself, but
. needs to collaborate wlth intematlonal environmental
organizations.

8

44 Protecting the environment and fighting pollution is less urgent
‘ than often suggested.

 

 

Back Next

Resteflhesmey

 

 

 

99