. . .memewywwt
...........
..
.u.
5w
.- J #3. £411.».
a... 3.. . a u.
u... 6....
.9

 

(A tgulvs'lz
flit 41)“);
£111III¢IB
4.). uuuuu

. . . ho
, §.0....l-2.§ fiwnuqhi. 2..
. . ifimwhfiltlififlhllurhtifihmwfi.fifii
. .. 3&3!!! ...I
“$0.31.. “urn... ix..- ...t.....mm
. Ll: lflhb‘ 1....Di. . .l _ III:
3 .w r: l!
:5an Wmfihhfirimmw. .. .ihmvt... .
..... a :4 h!....... (i. .
Allan... .33.... “3.-.“.8Wrfifiu. 31...... . 14......
i. . 4 .11.?! ..m...r:.a.......i 1 Fig.0.“... .ififihuutret
. .. 36 t 11......EA I .6) '10.... I? 3551......

‘I.

 
 

:
1:33.?!
.. . .. 53
I... .wn.1.u2.................n:. 1.... (:3- Q
.. xvp. a... .. , n.
y In”...
5... ..
. . . unmkufi... . w...w;...n...r...~.....
. r Foil... n... I.

. influx...”
. {13.35933
.2. ..

.....

:C'. .
.36! 3.32... .

.l... r . . , . ..

.. 1.... .1. .. . .. . .5

d..waz......i:.:. . : . Funding.

3... 2...... ..

L ti. :I; li‘Ji-a

 

.v.....fli..l£!§ 13!.qu
.01.: I. ligfli

. nix gt?!

1. will.

.$.iir.l.t... .-!.1.§ iv
uni}..- \Ililnfii l!
fhl;.lyuur!\.jsti

.i. 4.2. Silt

 

3b.
Itf|i.§lt.l..: i. ‘Iiufixisrsft
. .1 5. l..liu.$i - lot a

in“. uhflnnmnfldhcrlxv

. .
.flxtqltle. ... .

0.31 {[1,150.’ .5

F...- Aitn f .1 u. an!!! .1101!!-

L—

”may...

W'xv'MW"

 

1

fit
‘3‘}. 1‘ . u ) "'||l.v..ll. tlill
II I; . 4. it? {.031}. .v {3.31 [I'IIIIID’b
1' .. .. -tlullglllnt .‘1 . It. «MIPJH .nutuvvdtLLvl'.(I0§r I’lv" .I'

l \ . .0 1 lllll. Apllltftil

II 3. I353. 5.... I. . L . . .. > h..>l..!..r4 (2:1.a... ‘4, z-.. ....b . I! ..D‘I M.
1...... [ti-O 2A." .

x. A. . . ¥ I.

{O . . ' . I. I. U - '5 l III! | fl
.Eli’

THESlS

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

HOW SENSE OF COMMUNITY RELATES
TO RECYCLING PARTICIPATION

presented by
Annalie L. Campos

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master's degmmin Resource Development-
Urban Studies

 

Date 20 bucwlu/ mo

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

IllllllllllllllllIllHillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

293 01557 8069

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
"" DE? .3 0. 1,9;1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AR 14 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M wmmu

HOW SENSE OF COMMUNITY RELATES To RECYCLING PARTICIPATION
By

Annalie L. Campos

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Resource Development
Urban Affairs Programs

1997

ABSTRACT
HOW SENSE OF COMMUNITY RELATES TO RECYCLING PARTICIPATION
By

Annalie L. Campos

This study examines sense of community and its relationship to recycling
participation. Three hypotheses were tested: 1) sense of community is positively related
to recycling participation; 2) demographic factors (income, homeownership, education)
are positively related to recycling participation; and, 3) sense of community predicts
recycling better than demographic factors. F our hundred forty one residents from 36
street neighborhoods in Lansing, Michigan, were interviewed using a questionnaire that
consisted of demographic questions and I7 Likert-type items reflecting four sense of
community indicators (Belonging, Empowerment, Connection, and Support). Multiple
regression analyses and partial correlation statistics indicated that only sense of community
predicted recycling participation. Neighborhood development through physical planning,
social policies, and partnerships for promoting sense of community and increasing

recycling at the street neighborhood level are recommended.

DEDICATION

T o my wonderful family,
Danny and Katrina

“Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.”
(John 6: 12, The Holy Bible, NIV)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to many individuals who provided me with guidance, financial
support, encouragement, and friendship throughout the duration of my studies at Michigan
State University. My special appreciation goes to my major adviser, Professor Jeffrey
Riedinger, who provided invaluable assistance and guidance throughout my research.

I acknowledge Professors John Schweitzer and Cynthia Fridgen. As members of
my committee, they encouraged and inspired me to continue to work in the area of
resource conservation and community development.

Thanks also to Professor Tom Reischl of the Department of Psychology, for his
assistance in the statistical analysis of my data.

I also thank the Urban Affairs Programs and the Intemationalizing Student Life
ofice for providing me with financial support during my entire academic program.

I appreciate the invaluable assistance of Ms. Tonia Olson of the City of Lansing,
Office of Recycling and Composting office, in collecting the actual recycling participation
data.

Thanks to many special friends in Urban Affairs, Juliette Mackin, Fran Fowler, Ed
Gomez, June Woo Kim, Alice Lin, and Tom Crew. I also thank the Alociljas, and the
Christian Fellowship of Internationals and Friends for their prayers and support, and Bob

and Connie Cullum for being our loving parents in East Lansing.

iv

My special acknowledgment is reserved for Danny and Katrina and our families in
the Philippines, for their love, moral support, and inconceivable patience and

understanding.

Above all, thanks to God for everything.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I: THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................ 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 4
Objectives of the Study .................................................................................................... 5
Relevance of the Study .................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 6
Hypotheses of the Study .................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER H: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 8
Determinants of Recycling Behavior ................................................................................ 8
Extrinsic Incentives ...................................................................................................... 9
Intrinsic Incentives ..................................................................................................... 12
Internal Facilitators .................................................................................................... 12
External Facilitators ................................................................................................... l3
Demographic Factors ................................................................................................. 14
Summary of the Determinants of Recycling Participation ............................................ 15
Concepts Related to Sense of Community ...................................................................... 16
Environmental Altruism and Social Influence ............................................................. 16
Behavior Modeling and Imitation ............................................................................... 18
Environmental Collective Action ................................................................................ 18
The Sense of Community Construct ............................................................................... 19
Definition ................................................................................................................... 19
Prior Studies on Sense of Community ........................................................................ 19
Benefits of Sense of Community ................................................................................ 22
CHAPTER HI: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........................... 23
Research Design ............................................................................................................ 23
Hypotheses and Definition of Key Variables ............................................................... 24
Recycling Participation ........................................................................................... 25

The Hypotheses ..................................................................................................... 25
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 34
Sample Selection ........................................................................................................ 34

vi

Validity and Reliability of the Instrument ................................................................ 40

Recruiting and Training of Interviewers .................................................................. 4O
Conducting Structured Interview ........................................................................... 41
Collecting the Actual Recycling Participation Data ................................................. 41
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 41
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................... 43
Results ....................................................................................... ‘ .................................... 43
Characteristics of the Street Neighborhood ................................................................ 43
Actual Recycling Participation ................................................................................... 45
Results of the Statistical Tests .................................................................................... 45
Hypothesis 1 .......................................................................................................... 45
Hypothesis 2 .......................................................................................................... 49
Hypothesis 3 .......................................................................................................... 52
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 57
Demographic Factors and Recycling Participation ...................................................... 57
Sense of Community and Recycling Participation ....................................................... 64
Recommendations for Promoting Sense of Community .................................................. 66
Neighborhood Development through Physical Planning ............................................. 66
Social Policy and Neighborhood Development ........................................................... 67
Partnerships in Community Development ................................................................... 69
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................................... 72
Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................... 72
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................. 74
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 74
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................. 76
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 80

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Characteristics of the sample ..................................................................................... 44

Bivariate correlation coefficients between sense of community, safety,

and recycling participation ........................................................................................ 47
Regression of sense of community and safety on recycling participation .................... 50
Bivariate correlation coeflicients of demographic factors as related to recycling

participation ............................................................................................................. 51
Regression of demographic factors on recycling participation .................................... 53
Regression of all independent variables on recycling participation .............................. 54

Partial correlation coefficients of demographic factors and recycling participation
controlling for sense of community and safety .......................................................... 56

Partial correlation coefficients of sense of community, demographic factors, and
recycling participation controlling for safety ............................................................. 56

Partial correlation coefficients of demographic factors, safety, and recycling
participation controlling for sense of community ...................................................... 56

10 Partial correlation coefficients of sense of community, safety, and recycling

participation controlling for demographic factors ...................................................... 56

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Hypothetical relationship between predictor variables and recycling participation ...... 33

2 A street neighborhood .............................................................................................. 35
3 Normal P-P plot of regression standardized residual .................................................. 48
4 Empirical relationship between predictor variables and recycling participation ........... 58

ix

CHAPTER I
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM '
Introduction

In the last few decades, the increasing solid waste problem has become one of the
major issues that confront communities, policy makers, and environmental groups.
Americans generate about 160 million tons of solid waste each year (Forester, 1988) and
this amount continues to rise 3%-4% per year (Jacobs, Bailey, & Crews, 1984). In 1990,
Americans generated more than 195 million tons of municipal waste, up from 151 million
tons in 1980 (Environmental Protection Agency, 1992). The Environmental Protection
Agency reported that many garbage landfills in the United States have closed because they
are filled to capacity or due to their inability to meet new Subtitle Dl regulations, and
other new landfill sites are nearly impossible to identify. With landfill sites filling up,
ecological concerns rising, and municipalities under pressure to find solutions, strategies to
reduce the amount of solid waste are being sought.

Potential solutions to the waste problem include: (a) reduce the amount of waste
initially generated; and (b) increase recycling (Porter, Leeming, & Dwyer, 1995). The
strategy of increasing recycling as a way to manage solid waste, particularly household
waste, has been explored and documented. The literature indicates that recycling is

considered a very effective solution to the nation’s garbage problem because it reduces the

 

‘ See Solid Waste Act. Section II Subtitle D of Pub. L. 94-580. Oct. 21, 1976. 90 Stat. 2795.
1

2
amount of waste going to disposal and saves our natural resources (Hornik, Cherian,

Madansky, & Narayana, 1995). As an example, consider the savings generated by every
ton of paper made fi'om recycled material as compared to using virgin materials: the
processing generates 60 less pounds of air pollution; 17 trees are not cut for pulp; three
cubic yards of landfill space is not used; 4,200 kilowatt-hours of energy are saved, which
is enough to power an average home for six months; and 7,000 gallons of water are
conserved (Cravers, 1988). Thus, the basic argument for recycling is quite compelling.
Also, recycling has good potential for success because it is endorsed by a large majority of
people (Belsie, 1990). However, talking about recycling and engaging in recycling
behavior are two difi‘erent things. What pe0ple say and what people do, do not always
correspond (Shrum, Lowrey, & McCarty, 1995).

Several polls conducted in the 19905 indicated that Americans are "green" (Shrum
et al., 1995). Also, Dunlap and Scarce (1991) and Hastak, Horst, and Mazis (1994) as
cited in Shrum et a1. (1995), indicated that the trend in recent years has been one of
increasing support for environmental protection. A number of indicators provide
converging results: The incidence of pe0ple citing environmental protection as the most
important issue has recently risen; environmental problems are increasingly viewed as
threats to quality of life; support for government action has increased; and, the perception
of the seriousness of environmentally related problems has risen (Shrum et al., 1995).
Environmental issues are gaining attention at the local level as well. For example, during
the Fall Semester 1996 Resource Fair at Michigan State University, the Staff fi'om the

Student Life Department organized a Best Idea/Resource contest. MSU Recycling was

3
voted the best idea or resource among the campus wide resources presented in the fair.

Given these findings, it appears that people are pro-environment and may behave
accordingly. However, social marketers (i.e., people attempting to increase acceptance of
environmental programs requiring voluntary behavior) and traditional marketers (i.e.,
people selling products by emphasizing pro-environmental attributes) point to the fact
that, poll results aside, both voluntary compliance and purchase of green products are
decidedly less than impressive (Shrum et al., 1995). The waste generation in America still
continues to increase notwithstanding the growing body of scholarly literature on
developing and encouraging people to recycle.

One area in recycling studies that is not yet adequately documented is the role of
the " sense of community" in facilitating recycling participation. McMillan and Chavis
(1986), define sense of community as "a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling
that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members'
needs will be met by their commitment to be together" (p. 11). Prior studies about the
sense of community have been related to positive social outcomes, such as neighboring
and community participation (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Unger & Wandersman, 1982,
1985). It has also been related to crime prevention, drug abuse prevention, and mental
.health (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). Moreover, it is believed that most of the critical
problems in our society result from the weakening of the social infrastructure, or the sense
of community. Yankelovich (1981), found that:

in 1973, roughly one-third of Americans felt an intense need to compensate

for the impersonal and threatening aspects of modern life by seeking mutual
identification with others, on the basis of a sense of belonging together

(p.91).

Problem Statement

The implications of the sense of community construct to citizen participation and
related community development efforts indicated by different authors provided the
impetus for designing this study. This study explores the relationship between sense of
community and recycling participation in the context of thirty six (36) street
neighborhoods in Lansing, Michigan.

Most of the studies done on recycling focus on ways of increasing participation by
examining people's motivations (intrinsic and extrinsic) for recycling. Several studies have
been conducted on specific demographic factors as well as the effects of educational
programs on recycling and other resource conservation behavior. Hopper and Nielsen
(1991) indicate that research on recycling has been dominated by applied behavior analysis
and had been motivated largely by the practical desire to expand recycling participation.
Very few studies focus on the effect of social interaction on recycling behavior and no
study links sense of community to recycling participation. Social psychologists have rarely
studied the direct effects or interaction effects of social structure and social context on
recycling and other pro-environment behavior (Derksen & Gartrell, 1993).

Some concepts in the recycling literature that touch on aspects of sense of
community include environmental collective action or ECA (Everett and Peirce, 1992),
environmental altruism (De Young, 1986, Hopper and Nielsen, 1991, Homik et al., 1995,
Vining et al., 1992), social influence, and behavior modeling or imitation (Hornik et al.,

1995; Oskamp et al., 1991; Vining et al., 1992).

Objectives of the Study

The primary purpose of this study is to develop better understanding of recycling
behavior in the context of thirty six (36) street neighborhood communities situated within
the boundaries of the City of Lansing, Michigan. More specifically, the objectives of this
study are:
0 To understand the relationship between sense of community and recycling

participation;
0 To identify the relationship between demographic factors (i.e., income, home

ownership, education) and recycling participation; and
0 To discuss implications of this study in promoting recycling and other forms of civic

behavior.
Relevance of the Study

The importance of this study is twofold. First, it ofi‘ers a potential contribution to
the theoretical knowledge-base concerning recycling participation. As noted, there is
inadequate information about how “sense of community” relates to recycling participation.
Second, knowing the relationship between the “sense of community” and recycling
behavior of residents in a locale will allow program planners and irnplementers to design
interventions that will enhance recycling participation, especially in areas that have low
participation rates. This study will also provide information about how to enhance
residents’ collective action and participation in community activities.
The primary beneficiary of this study will be the Lansing Operations and

Maintenance, Office of Recycling and Composting. This office has noted a drop in

6
recycling participation of about 10% since its curbside recycling program began in

November, 1991. The coordinator of the Office of Recycling and Composting has
expressed interest in using the results of this study for the fiiture citywide recycling
program planning and implementation efforts.

The significance of this study goes beyond the scope of increasing recycling
participation. The results can be used by policy makers and scholars in developing
interventions that enhance development, support and promotion of other pro-
environmental behavior.

Research Questions

The study of recycling behavior is a very broad and complex subject-matter. In
order to focus the scope of this study, three questions will be addressed.

0 Is there a positive relationship between sense of community and recycling
participation?

0 What is the relationship between demographic factors (homeownership, income, and
education of residents) and recycling participation?

0 How well does sense of community predict recycling participation compared to
demographic variables?

Hypotheses of the Study

Three general hypotheses were derived for this study:
0 Sense of coMunity is positively related to recycling participation.
0 Demographic factors (income, home ownership, and education) are positively related

to recycling participation; and

7

0 Sense of community predicts recycling participation better than the demographic

factors.

CHAPTER H
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides a review of the recycling studies that have been conducted in
the last few decades. Studies that examine strategies to increase recycling were identified,
and the lack of studies linking sense of community to recycling participation is noted.
Based on this review, a conceptual framework denoting the relationship of sense of
community to recycling behavior is developed.
Determinants of Recycling Behavior

In the last few decades, several major research areas in recycling studies have
evolved. Tasaday (1991) indicated that recycling behavior has been extensively
researched; over 400 articles about waste disposal have been published during the last two
decades. Recycling has been researched from several points of view ranging from
economics, sociology, psychology, engineering, law, communication, and social
marketing, among other disciplines. Each discipline and its subdisciplines look at the
influence of different variables on recycling. Porter et a1. (1995) and Hornik et a1. (1995)
conducted comprehensive summaries of recycling studies conducted in the last two
decades or so. Porter et al. (1995) examined studies that employed behavioral
interventions in increasing recycling, while Hornik et a1. (1995) identified five broad

classifications of determinants of recycling behavior including: 1) external incentives,

9
2) internal incentives, 3) internal facilitators, 4) external facilitators, and 5) demographic

factors.

Hornik et a1. (1995) indicated that understanding and motivating people to engage
in recycling behavior was marked by two major phases. The initial phase, spanning a
period fi'om about 1970 to about 1982, emphasized external incentives such as monetary
rewards and sought to profile the recycler on several demographic characteristics. This
phase led to one widespread view that external incentives, by themselves, can initiate and
sustain recycling behavior (Geller, Winnett, & Everett, 1982). Hornik et al. (1995) further
classified the five determinants of recycling behavior into incentives that are a) altruistic -
internal incentives that depend on altruism, and b) utilitarian - external incentives that
depend on utilitarianism. They emphasized that the effects of altruistic variables endure
longer than the effects of utilitarian variables. Altniistic behaviors are believed to be
sustained indefinitely by the individual, while utilitarian behaviors can only be sustained by
something outside the individual. The effectiveness of external/utilitarian incentives
decreases far more rapidly than that of internal/altruistic incentives (Hornik et al., 1995).

The five determinants of recycling behavior are described below.
Extrinsic incentives

This strategy makes use of external motivations for promoting recycling. Porter et
al. (1995) reviewed behavioral programs that have been used to increase recycling in the
last 25 years. They found 27 published articles that focused specifically on the behavioral-
intervention approach to promote recycling. The behavioral-intervention approach

focuses on measuring the effects of manipulations of specific to promote recycling.

10
Interventions designed to alter behavior were identified and conceptualized in terms of a)

antecedent strategies (occur before the target behavior), and b) consequence strategies
(occur after the target behavior).

Porter et al. (1995) classified studies that examined prompts (written or verbal),
environmental alteration, commitment, and goal setting as antecedent strategies to
promote recycling. Consequence strategies used to promote recycling included feedback,
rewards, and penalty for not recycling.

Porter et al. (1995) found some consistent findings in this review of behavioral
programs. All of the behavioral intervention approaches and strategies (antecedent and
consequence) employed in the different studies reported at least some success in
increasing recycling. With the antecedents, verbal prompts by block leaders reliably
resulted in more recycling than prompts delivered in a written format. Written
commitment strategies also were more successful at increasing recycling than were verbal
commitments. Providing additional recycling containers as an environmental-alteration
technique always increased initial recycling levels. Finally, giving a goal to groups for the
amount of recycling desired also increased recycling above pre-treatment levels.

The review of consequence interventions also allowed some general conclusions.
Feedback increased recycling behavior, as indicated in one experiment that used it as a
main intervention. However, Hamad, Cooper, Bettinger, & Semb (1980-1981) indicated
that feedback was not as effective as goal setting. The studies employing rewards
produced large increases in recycling, especially when lotteries were used to reward

individuals. Other contingencies rewarding recyclers with immediate, smaller rewards or

11
group rewards were somewhat less effective. Finally, a penalty-based study provided

strong evidence that the reality of an economic loss increased recycling of wastes.

Despite these positive findings, several methodological problems were found.
Porter et al. (1995) noted that few studies were designed to compare intervention
techniques. The authors also noted that the apparent effectiveness of techniques was
influenced by the dependent variable measured, with the strongest efi‘ects found when the
percentage of subjects participating in the recycling program was used. Weaker effects
were observed when the measure was of absolute amount of material recycled. In some
cases no effects have been found on this measure despite substantial changes in
participation rates (e. g., Jacobs and Bailey, 1983). Strong effects have also been reported
by the few investigators who relied on self-reports rather than directly measuring recycling
behavior. With the tendency of self-reported recycling information to be upward biased,
these effects could be highly questionable.

Porter et al. (1995) and Dwyer, Leeming, Cobern, Porter & Jackson (1993), noted
that a major concern with the behavioral approach to improve recycling and pro-
environmental behavior in general, is the lack of evidence for long-term effects. Among
the studies reviewed, only one study by Levitt and Leventhal (1986) reported maintenance
of increased participation in recycling extending to one year. This finding was not
surprising at all considering that the intervention under study involved penalty for not
recycling: the "bottle law." Penalty based strategy for sustaining recycling participation

appeared to be effective.

12
The lack of long term effects of behavioral interventions provided the impetus for

looking into other external and internal incentives for recycling, such as social and
psychological motivators (Hornik et al., 1995).

Hornik et al. (1995) have identified social influence as another external incentive or
motivator for recycling. This influence may be defined as a person's concern about how
relevant others, such as family and fiiends, would react to seeing the person not recycling
(Vining & Ebreo, 1990). Social influence is also described as the presence or absence of
social support for recycling within one's household or community.

Intrinsic Incentives

Hornik et al. (1995) identified empirical studies that employed psychological scales
to relate some of the individual's intrinsic motivations to recycling. The intrinsic
motivations they cited include locus of control, personal satisfaction in avoiding wastes
and being more self-sufficient, general satisfaction from participating in a program where
one's actions seem to help the community and the nation, and the gratification of
conserving natural resources. De Young (1986b) found that internal incentives such as
feeling good about doing something good for the community and environment
significantly influenced recycling. Similarly, Oskamp et al. (1991) showed that internal
incentives such as satisfaction with conservation and frugality in consumption strongly
influence recycling.

Internal Facilitators
Internal facilitators were identified as cognitive variables which enable an

individual to recycle. Examples include awareness of the importance of recycling and

13
knowledge about recycling programs. Several environmentalists indicated that consumer

ignorance, misunderstanding, and confusion about recycling are internal barriers hindering
recycling behavior (Hornik et al., 1995). Another internal barrier develops when one
portrays recycling as primitive, time-consuming, and inconvenient. When viewed in this
manner, recycling seems improper in a technologically advanced society (Hornik et al.,
1995)

External Facilitators

Hornik et al. (1995) indicated that providing incentives to recycle may not be
enough. Recycling, which is a behavior that requires individual resources (time, space,
money, and effort), implies that external facilitators must outweigh the disincentives to
recycle. Time, money, space, and effort can be external barriers to recycling. If the
external barriers are higher than the incentive to recycle (external or internal incentive),
engaging in consistent recycling may be unlikely. An example of external facilitators of
recycling are the convenience and user-fiiendliness of recycling program.

According to several researchers, making recycling more convenient and easier to
perform, thereby reduced the response cost of recycling (Porter et al., 1995). Altering the
environment was found to increase recycling. Examples of such techniques included
adding more recycling containers to a particular area (i.e., increasing the proximity of
containers to potential recyclers), providing containers to people participating in a
curbside recycling program (i.e., making separation of recyclables fi'om household wastes
easier), and changing the day of curbside pickup to coincide with the regular trash pickup

(i.e., making it easier for residents to assemble wastes for collection).

14

Demographic Factors

Demographic factors are the most commonly investigated predictors in recycling
(Hornik et al., 1995). Education, youth, and ownership of a single home are often thought
to correlate strongly with the propensity to recycle. Specific socioeconomic
characteristics are found to associate positively with recycling participation. In particular,
Peters (1973) as cited in McGuire (1984), determined that recycling behavior was a direct
function of income and education. He found that the higher the income and the more
years of education, the greater the likelihood of an individuals participation in recycling
programs.

In a more recent study, Katzev, Blake, & Messer (1993) found that the level of
tenant participation in multi-family recycling program was positively associated with
income, education, and some other motivational factors. Van Liere and Dunlap (1980)
and Vining and Ebreo (1990) have also documented a positive relationship between
conservation behavior, including recycling, and both income and education. These authors
argue that upper income individuals have higher levels of consumption, and therefore have
more materials to recycle than lower income individuals. With respect to education, their
findings supported the notion that individuals with more schooling have read more about
environmental issues, including recycling, and as a result are more likely to recycle their
solid waste materials than less-informed individuals. In a similar study, Oskamp et al.
(1991) found that recyclers had significantly higher family income than non-recyclers,

were more likely to live in a single-family house, and were more likely to own their home.

1 5
Summary of the Determinants of Recycling Participation

Hornik et al. (1995) subjected these five clusters of variables (extrinsic incentives,
intrinsic incentives, internal facilitators, external facilitators, and demographic factors) to
meta-analysis (Hunter-Schmidt techniquez), with all these five clustered variables used as
independent variables, and "propensity to recycle" used as the dependent variable. Results
indicated that the strongest predictors of recycling were internal facilitators, specifically,
consumer knowledge. This result indicated that propensity to recycle was quite strongly
related to variables like level of consumer awareness or knowledge of recycling programs.

The second strongest predictors were external incentives, in particular, monetary
rewards and social influence. This finding indicated that social influence (support among
fiiends, neighbors, and family members) influences recycling. The third most predictive
set of variables were internal incentives; specifically, satisfaction derived from recycling,
locus of control, and ecological concern. Thus, those residents who felt that their actions
could effect real change (i. e., those people with strong internal locus of control) were
more likely to recycle than those individuals who felt that their actions could not effect
real change (i.e., those people with a strong external locus of control). The external
facilitators and demographic variables were found to have weak relationships with the

criterion (propensity to recycle) variable.

 

2 According to Hornik et al. (1995), the Hunter-Schmidt technique is a method of meta-analysis which is
based on correlations. This procedure allows the identification of those variables which have been found
by the research to be associated with the study domain. The method also permits the determination of the
relative strengths of the correlations; it is common practice not to simply average a correlation across
studies but to weight it by the sample sizes of each study (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990, as cited in Hornik et
a1, 1995). Further, the technique suggests way to critically evaluate moderator variables; potential
moderators are used to split the study into subsets, and the mean correlation within each of these subsets
are calculated.

16
To summarize, Hornik et al. (1995) indicated that the most striking findings of the

meta-analysis for the 67 studies reviewed were the strong relationships of knowledge and
perceived social influence on one's propensity to recycle. While monetary incentives
seemed to work well in encouraging recycling behavior, there were a number of other
factors that appeared to initiate and sustain recycling, including perceived satisfaction,
commitment, and locus of control. An empirically derived model based on these findings
was proposed by Hornik et al. (1995).
Concepts Related to Sense of Community

The two comprehensive reviews of the literature on recycling studies showed a
lack of research conducted about sense of community on recycling participation. The
concepts that conceptually relate to the study of sense of community are: a)environmental
altruism (De Young, 1986a; Hopper and Nielsen, 1991; Vining et al., 1992; and Hornik et
al., 1995), b) environmental collective action or ECA (Everett & Peirce, 1992); c) social
influence and behavior modeling or imitation (Hornik et al., 1995; Oskamp et al., 1991;
Vining et al., 1992). These concepts were used in the present study as the basal
information for the proposed relationship between sense of community and recycling
participation.
Environmental Altruism and Social Influence

Hopper and Nielsen (1991) examined the extent to which recycling can be
conceptualized as an altruistic behavior. By definition, altruistic behavior is a normative
behavior, and norms are developed through social interaction (p. 202). Altruism is the

unselfish concern for the welfare of others; acting in the best interest of the general society

17
regardless of personal costs (De Young, 1986a; p.398). Based upon the Schwartz Model

of Altruism3, Hopper and Nielsen explored social processes that were considered to
influence altruistic behavior. In their study, block leaders were introduced as social
interventions specifically to promote recycling participation. One of the tasks of the block
leaders was to promote personal interaction among residents in their assigned blocks. The
object of this interaction was to promote normative processes, as suggested by the
altruism model. Results indicated that block leaders did have an impact on norms.
Beyond that, they had a marked impact on behavior compared to the other experimental
interventions used in the study. The authors maintained that it was possible that block
leaders influenced behavior directly, without changing attitudes, through a process of
behavioral modeling and imitation. Hopper and Nielsen also cited several pro-ecology
behaviors that have been conceptualized as altruism during the past 15 years. Energy
conservation, littering, and purchasing lead-free gasoline have all been shown to conform
to a social-psychological model of altruistic behavior.

Vining et al. (1992) also found altruism to be the most important motive for
recycling during their comparison of four community solid waste management programs.
Further, environmental altruism was the only category of motivation that was consistently

endorsed by the research participants and was active in all four communities studied.

 

3 The Schwartz Model of Altruism indicates that the process begins with social norms regarding moral
behavior which people generally agree upon in a sort of abstract and detached way. These norms represent
the values and attitude of significant others; we expect others to act in the morally proper way, and they in
turn expect the same of us. By themselves, however, these norms are far too general and detached to
govern behavior. Instead, the social norms are adopted by each of us on a personal level, and hence
become personal norms. Personal norms derived from socially shared norms, are distinct from personal
norms because the consequences of violating or upholding them are tied to one's self-concept. To violate a
personal norm engenders guilt, and to uphold a personal norm engenders pride. In short, social norms
exist on the social structural level, whereas personal norms are strongly internalized moral attitudes
(Hiberlein, 1975b; Schwartz & Howard, 1980 as cited in Hopper and Nielsen, 1991).

18
These authors also mentioned the importance of social pressure, or in a more positive

sense, social facilitation, as an effective approach for promoting recycling. The perception
of social pressure to recycle, from family, neighbors, and friends, can result from an
individual's concern for family members' or neighbors' perceptions about their behavior.
Social facilitation may occur when fiiends or families encourage a particular behavior.
Conversely, lack of support from members of one's household may increase pressure not
to perform conservation behaviors (Vining et al., 1992). The notion of social facilitation
closely parallels the essence of the Schwartz Model of Altruism.
Behavior Modeling and Imitation

Behavior modeling as a social facilitation strategy was also found to be a strong
predictor in recycling participation in the study conducted by Oskamp et a1 (1991). They
found that having fiiends and neighbors who recycle was the second strongest predictor in
recycling participation after convenience. They concluded that peer participation and
modeling are important determinants of recycling behavior.
Environmental Collective Action

Everett and Peirce (1992) introduced the notion of environmental collective action
or ECA. They maintain that environmental collective actions (ECAs) attempt to motivate
individuals to reduce pollution, an internally produced collective bad (p. 68). Examples of
ECAS include programs for litter prevention, energy conservation, and recycling. Everett
and Peirce surveyed block leaders, and found that block participation in the recycling
program was associated with higher "social tie density" ( a measure of how well block

residents know each other). Also, a more comprehensive strategy of data collection by

19
conducting face to face interviews and a survey of actual recycling participation is

employed. Everett and Peirce concluded that: "A more detailed study, in which block
members or the residents are questioned, and with measurement of actual participation
rates, should provide significant additional information (p. 81).".

These findings suggest the relevance of examining social processes, specifically
sense of community and its potential relationship to recycling participation. The following
section explains sense of community and its potential link to recycling participation.

The Sense of Community Construct
Definition

Sense of community is a term that has been used most frequently in studies that
address social and psychological aspects of community and community life. In the past
decades, several scholars have explored valid ways of defining, operationalizing, and
measuring sense of community. Efratt (1974) described this construct as
"communityness" while others use sense of community interchangeably with the
constructs: neighborhood attachment, community solidarity, belongingness, and
neighborliness (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

Prior Studies on Sense of Community

Riger and Lavrakas (1981) studied sense of community as reflected in
neighborhood attachment and found two empirically distinct but correlated factors which
they called, social attachment and behavioral rootedness. The social attachment factor
contained items concerning the ability to identify neighbors, feeling part of the

neighborhood, and the number of neighborhood children known to the respondent.

20

Behavioral rootedness referred to years of community residency, whether one’s home is
owned or rented, and expected length of residency. Using these factors, the authors
identified four "meaningful" and distinct groups of citizens: young mobiles (low bonded,
low rooted); young participants (high bonded, low rooted); isolates (low bonded, high
rooted) and established participants (high bonded, high rooted). This study showed that
social attachment and behavioral rootedness are variables that promote community
attachment and development of a sense of community among residents.

Ahlbrandt and Cunningham (1979) studied sense of community in the context of
the neighborhood. They viewed sense of community as an integral contributor to one's
commitment to, and satisfaction with a neighborhood. They found that those residents
who were most committed and satisfied saw their neighborhood as a small community
nested in a city, were more loyal to the neighborhood than to the rest of the city, and
thought of their neighborhood as offering particular activities for its residents. These
characteristics represent the authors' conceptualization of sense of community. Social
fabric was also considered to be a contributor to commitment to, and satisfaction with the
neighborhood. The authors used this term to capture the strengths of interpersonal
relationships as measured through different types of neighbor interactions.

Bachrach and Zautra (1985) studied the coping response to a proposed hazardous
waste facility in a rural community. They found that a stronger sense of community led to
problem-focused coping behaviors - behaviors that attempt directly to alter or counter the
threat. A path analytic model showed that problem-focused coping contributed strongly

to the level of one's community involvement (i.e., reading reports, attending meetings,

21
signing petitions), and the authors concluded that stronger sense of community led to a

"greater sense of purpose and perceived control" in dealing with an external threat. These
authors used a sense of community scale based on scales developed in previous studies
(e. g., Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Rhoads, 1982). Five items were included in this
measure: a) feeling at home in the community, b) feeling of belonging in the community, c)
interest in what goes on in the community, (1) feeling an important part of the community,
and e) attachment to the community. The scale was internally consistent (alpha = .76).
McMillan and Chavis (1986) proposed a definition and theory of sense of
community. These authors defined sense of community as a "feeling that members of a
group have a sense of both belonging and being important to each other, and a shared faith
that members’ needs will be meet by their commitment to be together" (p.11). A unique
aspect of this definition centers on the integration of ideas surrounding the definition of
community as a "territory" and "relationship." They identified four elements in their
definition which include: 1) membership - a feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of
personal relatedness, 2) influence - a sense of mattering, of making a difference to a group
and the group mattering to its members, 3) reinforcement - integration and fulfillment of
needs, a feeling that members' needs will be met by the resources received through their
membership in the group, and 4) shared emotional connection - the commitment and belief
that members have shared and will share history, common places, time together, and

similar experiences.

22
Benefits of Sense of Community

The “sense of community” concept has been explored more specifically in studies
concerning civic activities such as voting and participation in community development
efforts, crime prevention and drug abuSe prevention, mental health (Chavis &
Wandersman, 1990), urban and regional planning (Cochrun, 1994), and toxic exposure
and related environmental issues (Bachrach & Zautra, 1985; Edelstein, 1987). These
authors found that one benefit of “sense of community” includes promoting collective
action for the mutual benefit of group members. Sense of community is a vital construct
that has practical implications transcending community-problem-solving-capability or
empowerment, crime prevention and general health of communities.

The basic argument surrounding sense of community is its practical application in
community and pe0ple development. Dockeki (1983) cited the implications of sense of
community in public policy formulation and has proposed that public policy should be
modeled around the values of human development and community. A clear and
empirically validated understanding of sense of community can provide the foundation for
lawmakers and planners to develop programs that meet their stated goals by strengthening
and preserving community (Chavis and McMillan, 1986). And, promoting sense of
community among residents can be a step in enhancing collective action such as recycling
and other forms of civic behavior. By promoting sense of community, these stated goals

for human and community development can be achieved.

CHAPTER IH
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides an outline of how this study was conducted. Based on
correlational research design, variables for this study were identified and sample selection
was undertaken. Consequently, data gathering was employed to obtain information.
These activities and the actual process of the field work will be discussed in this chapter.
Research Design

The literature base on the study of recycling participation indicated a wide use of
correlational research design. Correlational research design is most often used in
exploratory studies, in examining relationships between recycling and variables describing
psychological aspects of recycling such as attitudes, motivations, values, knowledge,
satisfaction derived fi'om recycling, and a host of demographic variables (Leeming, Porter,
& Cobern, 1993).

This study uses the correlational type of research design. The main reason for
choosing this design is that this study is intended to generate explanations of the
relationship between recycling participation and sense of community rather than to
establish causation. An advantage of the correlation design is that it allows for analyzing
relationships among a large number of variables. In analyzing recycling behavior,
particularly participation, a number of factors have to be examined. In the same manner,

understanding and measuring the sense of community among residents in a locale also

23

24
requires extensive examination of a number of predictor variables. Another significant

advantage of this research design is its ability to provide information on the degree of
relationship between variables being investigated.

In this correlational research design, individual interviews were aggregated in
order to obtain data at the street neighborhood level. The correlational design of this

study consisted of the following procedures:

F orrnulating the hypotheses

0 Identifying samples and/or selecting the communities.

0 Conducting structured interviews and collecting data on recycling participation
0 Applying appropriate statistical tests to the data to obtain possible correlational

patterns

Interpreting results and identifying relationships among the variables.
Hypotheses and Operational Definition of Key Variables

Three general hypotheses are tested in this study. First, sense of community is
positively related to recycling participation. Second, demographic factors (income, home
ownership, and education) are positively related to recycling participation. And third,
sense of community predicts recycling participation better than the demographic factors.
Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized relationship between these sets of variables.

It is essential that key variables in this study are defined. The following sections
will define recycling participation, describe the measures used, and, list the hypotheses

with the relevant variables.

25
Recycling participation

Recycling participation was operationalized as the voluntary participation of
residents in the curbside recycling program, a program administered by the City of
Lansing, Office of Recycling and Composting. Actual recyclingparticipation was
observed for six consecutive weeks, or six curbside recycling days, fi'om April 1 to May
15, 1996. Observers recorded whether residents have their filled recycling bins in fi'ont of
their houses or not during these scheduled curbside recycling days.1 The rate of recycling
participation was determined using the expression:

total number of bins x
total number of households (6)

 

recycling participation rate (%) =

Wherein, the rate of the actual recycling participation at the street neighborhood
level is equal to the total number of bins observed during the six consecutive recycling
days for a particular street neighborhood, divided by the total number of houses on the

street times six. The quotient is converted to percentage form by multiplying it by 100.

The Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. There is a positive relationship between sense of community and recycling
The literature on recycling participation does not mention any study conducted

about sense of community. However, environmental collective action or ECA (Everett &

Peirce, 1992), behavioral modeling and imitation, environmental altruism, and social

influence(De Young, 1986a; Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Hornik et al., 1995; Vining et al.,

' A score of 1 means ”yes bin" for a particular household that had a filled recycling bin in front of the
house and a score of 0 means "no bin” was observed.

26
1992) are concepts found in recycling studies that seem to touch on some aspects of the

sense of community construct. More specifically, these concepts focus on the essence and
efi‘ects of social processes which were found to promote recycling behavior. These
concepts laid the foundation for the hypothesized relationship between sense of
community and recycling participation.

In this study, sense of community was operationalized using the theoretical model
proposed by McMillan and Chavis (1986). Four subscales, consisting a total of 17 Likert
type items, were hypothesized to comprise sense of community, including Belonging,
Support, Connection, and Empowerment. All items measuring the four subscales were
designed with the intention of aggregating the responses at the street neighborhood level.
Though scale reliability analysis indicated that each subscale yielded individually
satisfactory scales, Principal Components factor analysis indicated that these subscales
also fit together well into one large factor. Thus, a sense of community measure (SOC
Index) at the Street neighborhood level was created by first taking the mean of the values
for all 17 items across individual respondents, and then, across street neighborhoods. The
sense of community measure (SOC Index) consisted of the following Likert type items
with responses ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5):

Belonging

People on this street neighborhood feel like a family.
Residents are committed to the street neighborhood’s future.
People on this street neighborhood feel they belong here.

PeOple on this street neighborhood like living here.

27
Connection

People on this street neighborhood know each other.

People on this street neighborhood participate in social activities (e. g., pot lucks, group
garage sales, etc).

People on this street neighborhood like each other.

People on this street neighborhood feel isolated fiom each other.

Support

On this street neighborhood people talk to each other about community problems.

People on this street neighborhood feel comfortable borrowing and lending things from
each other.

People on this street neighborhood watch out for each other.

People on this street neighborhood comfort each other in times of need.

People on this street neighborhood give rides to each other if needed.

Empowerment

Residents on this street neighborhood are able to resolve conflict when it arises.

People on this street neighborhood influence each others' behavior.

People get things done to improve the street neighborhood.

People on this street neighborhood have a voice regarding important community issues.

m
A variable, feeling of safety in the street neighborhood, is included in the

hypothesized relationship between sense of community and recycling participation. In

theory, a feeling of safety partly accounts for the sense of community that exists among

28
residents in a particular locale. Wilson (1975) argued that the presence of crime in a

neighborhood not only affects individuals directly through an increase in fears about their
safety, but also indirectly by reducing their interaction with one another. This indirect
effect seriously impedes the development and/or maintenance of community at the local
level. Fear about safety in a neighborhood creates distrust among residents, which
consequently hinders them from building social support networks. Social support
networks facilitate collective efforts in addressing safety problems within that
neighborhood. And the lack of it in a neighborhood prevents the development of sense of
community among neighbors affecting not just satisfaction with their neighborhood but
their overall life satisfaction as well (O'Brien and Ayidiya, 1991).

Fear of safety has also made an impact on one's propensity to engage in behaviors
that are deemed beneficial to him/herself and the community. For example, The New
York Times (September, 1995) and Editor and Publislfl (January, 1995) magazines have
indicated the increasing trend of a new breed of urban thief in the city of New York and
other big cities across America. Stealing recyclable materials, especially newspaper and
other items made of newsprint has devastated not just curbside recyclers and other civic
organizations administering voluntary drop-off recycling programs but municipal oflicials
as well. Newspaper "poachers" are especially prevalent in neighborhoods that have high
recycling ratesz. While measures to address this problem are being undertaken by city

ofiicials and several concerned groups from those cities, the propensity to continuously

 

2 Also called "scavengers" - people who take recyclable materials before city trucks do, then sells the
materials to recycling processors that would have otherwise been bought from the city. This act amounts
to outright theft from taxpayers.

29
engage in recycling is affected, especially for those residents in areas where this type of

crime has taken place.
For this study, safety is used as an independent variable and is operationalized as
two Likert-type statements. These items included:
It is fairly safe to walk on this street neighborhood at night.
People on this street neighborhood feel that it is a safe place to live.

Hypothesis 2. Demoggaphic factors (home ownership; incomegand education) a_r§

msitively associated with recycling participation. That is. the higher the level of income,

 

 

edugation, and number of home owners in a street neighborhood, the higher is the

 

recycling participation.

The conventional idea that specific socioeconomic characteristics are directly
linked to recycling participation is empirically supported by several studies. In particular,
Peters (1973) determined that recycling behavior was a direct firnctiOn of income and
education. He found that the higher the income and the more years of education, the
greater the likelihood of participation in recycling programs. McGuire (1984) indicated
that studies by Cummings (1975) in Staten Island, New York, by Tobias (1977) and the
League of Women Voters (1977) in Tucson, Arizona, and by Statistical Services
Incorporated (1979) in Seattle, Washington, have confirmed this conclusion. Van Liere
and Dunlap (1980), Vining and Ebreo (1990), Oskamp et al. (1991), and Katzev et al.
(1993) are some of the more recent studies indicating a positive relationship between the

specified demographic factors and recycling participation.

30
The present study uses the street neighborhood level demographic factors, which

sets the difference between the previous studies conducted by the different authors
mentioned above. Responses to the specific demographic questions were aggregated at
the street neighborhood level. Homeownership was determined by asking whether the
respondent owns or rents the house that he/she is living in. The rate of homeownership at
the street neighborhood level was then computed.

Income was determined by asking the respondent to identify the financial condition
of the people living in the street neighborhood. Five categories were provided as response
options:

1. Poor/low income

2. Middle income on the lower side
3. Middle income

4. Middle income on the higher side
5. Well-off

An average income level at the street neighborhood level was computed for all
street neighborhoods.

Education was determined by asking the respondent to indicate the educational
attainment of all adults in the household. Then, an average household educational level

also computed for all street neighborhoods.

31
Hypothesis 3. Sense of community predicts recycling participation better thfl the

demographic variables.

The wealth of information about resource conservation, specifically recycling, is
impressive. Researchers have found that many existing strategies to increase recycling do
not promote long-term behavioral change (Sarndahl & Robertson, 1989; Vining & Ebreo,
1990). So that,studies attempting to identify workable and sustainable strategies to
promote recycling and other resource conservation approaches continue to grow.

Sense of community can be a sustainable strategy in increasing recycling and other
pro-environment behavior. As noted, the benefits of sense of community transcends
merely promoting collective action. It empowers both the individual to improve the
group, and the group to make changes (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). In the context of
neighborhoods, sense of community allows people to address problems within their
locality and to make changes that improve the quality of life for residents, improve the
quality of the physical environment, enhance services, prevent crime, and improve social
conditions (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). It can lead to physical improvement of a
neighborhood, which increases residential satisfaction and informal social control, and as a
result aids in crime prevention (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). The underlying importance
of sense of community is its connection to altruistic behavior and/or civic responsibility,
which has also been found to relate to recycling participation (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991).
In addition, behaviors based on altruism are believed to be sustained indefinitely by the

individual unlike those behaviors motivated by external incentives (Hornik et al., 1995).

32
The promotion of sense of community appears to be an appropriate and sustainable

strategy for increasing participation at the street neighborhood level.

Geller (1995) stated:

That people are needed, people who have an attitude to actively care for

the environment is the best long term approach in resource conservation.

People who actively care enough to emit other-directed (or altruistic)

behaviors for environmental protection (p.184).

Geller proposed a multifactor model to predict the propensity of an individual to
care actively for the environment or for another person. These factors included: self-
esteem, belongingness, self-efficacy, personal control, and optimism. Geller (1995)
firrther indicated that the more positive and long term approaches for changing human
behavior and attitudes for environmental protection are only feasible for large-scale
application if increasing numbers of people actively care enough to implement these
techniques. It is each individual in concert with millions of other individuals who have to
ameliorate environmental problems, and who must recognize that they are, as individuals,
responsible for the development and existence of present and emerging environmental
problems (F ridgen, 1994). The promotion of social interaction and other processes, and
more specifically, sense of community, to increase recycling participation and other pro-
environment behavior appears to be a sustainable and long-term approach to resource
conservation. An established and strong sense of community can be a potential strategy
for increasing and sustaining recycling participation.

A hypothetical model of the relationship between the predictor variables

(demographic factors, sense of community, safety) and recycling participation is shown in

Figure l.

33

dosafifltam 95983— 35 835...; 3.3.5.5 5953— 95223—9: 39:052.»: A 9...»:—

 

muocoam 0.3 a 255
$2855
Sfiauziemfiel
8:85

 

 

 

Eugmiemfim
tekmzm
$28589
wszeEm

can.

EzEEoU mo omzom \

34
Methodology

This section describes the process by which the information for this study were
generated. This process involved identification of the samples of the study and the actual
collection of the information needed fi'om the samples identified.

Sample Selection
The "Community"

Before selecting the sample for this study, it was important to define the
"community" in terms that the researchers and potential subjects of the research could
relate to. Definition of community has been sought in a number of disciplines. Much has
been said about what constitutes and what does not constitute "community." According to
Hillery (1955), of the 93 definitions of community that he examined fiom the urban and
rural sociology and anthropology disciplines, 73 indicated "area" as the major defining
characteristic of a community. And afier area, the two most commonly included in
definition of community were common ties and social interaction (Hillery, 1955; p.118).
For this study, a physical or geographic definition of community is used, specifically
“street neighborhood” (Lorimer and Myfanwy, 1971)or “neighborhood street
communities” (Efratt, 1974).

"Street neighborhood" is defined as the area of a residential street bounded by two
cross streets (Figure 2). A “street neighborhood” characterizes a level of spatial area that
is one unit larger than the household. Residents of the street neighborhood have more

opportunities for neighboring to take place than residents of a larger neighborhood unit.

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'cAV unfitqorw

 

ueefeaswmoz «3&5 < .N 9.sz

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmdkm Adm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'13 roadsord

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36
For example, residents maybe more likely to borrow and lend things, help each other in

emergency situations, and pursue other forms of social interactions, which may facilitate
connection and a greater sense of community (Lorimer & Myfanwy, 1971; McMillan &
Chavis, 1986; Philiber, 1976). Also, social influence is more likely to be stronger among
neighbors in closer proximity. People feel pressure both fiom other individuals and from
their community to confirm with certain social standards or norms to fulfill their needs for
consensual validation (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

Street neighborhoods in Lansing, Michigan, were selected for this study using the
following criteria:
0 Residential neighborhoods

Street neighborhoods needed to be primarily residential areas. A geographic
boundary (either a dead end or cross streets) identified the ends of a street neighborhood.
Some street neighborhoods are part of neighborhood associations, have community police
officer assigned to the area, or have existing neighborhood watch organizations. All of the
street neighborhoods selected were located within the City of Lansing boundaries.
0 Geographic locations and mean housing value.

A map provided by the Lansing Neighborhood Council facilitated the selection of
street neighborhoods fi'om the different parts of Lansing. 1993 census statistics were used
to identify street neighborhoods with varied mean housing values, which is an

approximation for socio-economic status.

37
The Research Participant

The research participant needed to be 18 years of age or older living in a house in a
street neighborhood selected to be part of the study. He/she must have: a) lived in the
street neighborhood for at least a month, b) willing to participate in the interview, and c)
knowledgeable of the social and physical characteristics of the street neighborhood.

Data Collection

Two phases of data collection were conducted for this study: a) a household
survey for examining the sense of community, and b) an observation of actual recycling
participation at the street neighborhood level. The following sections will describe the
processes by which the data collection for sense of community and recycling participation
was conducted.

The Survey Instrument for Sense of Community

The Sense of Community project in Michigan State University's Urban Affairs
Programs, in which the author was directly involved, administered the sense of community
survey in Lansing street neighborhoods. The questionnaire was developed based on the
results of conceptual and empirical studies of sense of community found in the existing
literature, focus group sessions with Lansing Neighborhood Organization representatives,
and an exploratory sense of community study at University Apartments complexes at
Michigan State University.

The sense of community questionnaire consisted of Likert-type statements
reflecting the residents’ feelings of safety, belonging, empowerment, connection, and

support toward their particular street neighborhood. Demographic questions were also

38
included in this questionnaire. From this questionnaire, seventeen (17) Likert-type items

and some questions about demographic characteristics were extracted and analyzed for
this study (Appendix A).
Pretesting the Instrument
Pretesting was conducted to detect weaknesses of the instrument. One of the
objectives of pretesting was to modify and improve the instrument so that valid and
reliable information could be obtained. Further, it provided the investigator/s relevant
feedback and more efi‘ective ideas and approaches which were otherwise unforeseen.
Hill Street was the community selected for the pretesting of the final draft of the
instrument. Five graduate students and a professor from Urban Affairs, in teams of two,
conducted interviews with a household member from each of the 8 households in the
street. Each of the interviews lasted an average of 25 minutes. At the end of the
pretesting session, a stafl‘ meeting was conducted to discuss experiences and generate
suggestions to improve the instrument. The pretest set out to answer and explain the
following questions:
0 Were the instructions or opening statements clearly understood by the interviewee?
0 Was the organization of the questionnaire adequate so that the flow of the interview
was smooth?
0 Was the instrument so lengthy that respondents found it boring?
0 Were there redundant statements or questions?
0 Were there particular questions that respondents had a hard time

understanding/answering?

39

0 Was it hard for the interviewer to explain questions?

0 Were there large numbers of "I don't know" or "Neutral" responses?

0 What was the overall impression of the interviewer regarding the instrument?

After conducting the pretest, the research team reviewed every question contained
in the instrument. Several changes were made. These included:

0 Re-organizing the layout of the instrument, such that the question about the
respondent's length of residency was asked at the very beginning before the Likert-
type items. This aided in determining the respondent's knowledge about the street
neighborhood and his/her willingness to continue with the interview.

0 Some questions were eliminated because they were found to be redundant. Also, a
few were added, along with open-ended questions to clarify responses that seemed to
need further elaboration and explanation.

Some suggestions from the members of the research team were implemented which

included a) developing a similar form of introduction that interviewers should follow in

conducting the interview, b) providing the respondent a copy of the scale which he/she
used in responding to the Likert-type items, and c) creating a flyer to be posted or
distributed to every household in the street neighborhood prior to the actual request for
interviews. This strategy was believed to promote awareness of the survey and the study
in general, and reduce residents' feeling of intrusion fiom people not from their
neighborhood. It was also believed that this strategy could promote higher participation in

the survey.

40
Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

Parts of the instrument were based on previous research investigations and were
validated by respective investigators as found in the literature review. The items were
carefirlly studied to determine whether they were applicable to the communities in
Lansing. Reliability analysis was conducted on all items and scales in the instrument.
Recruiting_and Training of Interviewers

Paid interviewers were recruited by word-of-mouth. Team members of the
research project identified and recruited potential interviewers. Interviewers were
encouraged to attend stafi‘ meetings to learn about the overall concept of the project.
Subsequently, one-on-one training for each of the interviewers was conducted by the
graduate students who were members of the research project, to ensure that a) a
description of the research study and objectives were understood, b) the instrument was
clear and information that was hoped to be generated from each question were discussed,
c) guidelines for the interview process were clear and understood, and d) interviewers
knew who was supervising them and monitoring their needs. The training also included an
interview process at the street neighborhood, wherein the graduate student conducting the
training was to model the process to the interviewer who was being trained. The
interviewer being trained was then allowed to conduct a formal interview under the
supervision of a graduate student. Feedback and ways to improve the process were
discussed after the training. Only when the interviewers indicated confidence in doing the
process by themselves were they allowed to conduct interviews without graduate student

supervision.

41 '
Conducting Structured Interviews

Trained interviewers, most of whom were Psychology major undergraduate
students with prior interviewing experience, conducted the face-to-face interviews. Prior
to conducting the survey, flyers were distributed to each household, informing residents of
the study, its purpose, and the benefits of participating in the study. At least three
attempts were made by the interviewer to contact potential respondents in each household
on the street neighborhoods that they were assigned. Vacant houses were not accounted
for in determining the response rate in each street neighborhood
Collectig the Actual Recycling Participation Data

Actual recycling participation data were obtained with the assistance of the stafi’
from the Lansing Recycling and Composting office. Weekly recycling participation was
determined by observing and recording the total number of filled recycling bins found in
street neighborhoods. This observation took place for six consecutive weeks or six
recycling days. A data sheet with pre-listed house numbers for each street neighborhood
was used in recording the observation. The weekly recycling participation rate at the
street neighborhood level for all 36 neighborhoods was computed.

Data Analysis

The correlational research design was used in this study to determine relationships
among the variables sense of community, safety, demographic factors (income, education,
home ownership) and recycling participation. These major groups of variables included

more specific factors which were subjected to appropriate statistical tests. The outcomes

42
revealed through each set of variables were examined, and preliminary inferences were

drawn to explain such results.

The statistical package SPSS for Windows was used in examining and analyzing
the data from this study. Sample characteristics were examined using descriptives
statistics, bivariate and partial correlation statistics were used in understanding
relationships between individual variables, Principal Components factor analysis was used
to develop and test theories for one of the independent variables (sense of community),
and Standard Multiple Regression ‘was conducted to test the hypotheses derived for this

study.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION '

This chapter details the results of the statistical tests conducted based upon the
three hypotheses. The first part of this chapter will cover the general characteristics of the
data set, followed by the results of the statistical tests. The last section of the chapter
discusses the results and implications of the relationships between the variables examined.
Results
Characteristics of the Street Neighborhood

Thirty six street neighborhoods in Lansing, Michigan, were surveyed during the
months of May to December 1995. The survey generated a total of.441 interviews
resulting in an average street neighborhood response rate of 62%, not including home
vacancies found in each of the street neighborhoods. As shown in Table 1, the average
number of households on each street neighborhood is about 21. More than half of the
respondents in the survey were female (65% overall). The rate of home ownership was
also high at 73%. The length of residency or the number of years that respondents
indicated they had lived in a street neighborhood was 12.41 years. The average age of
respondents was 43.39 years; respondents identified themselves as middle income; and
their educational attainment was found on average to be 1-2 years in college or

completion of some sort of skill training.

43

44

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample

 

 

Variable Name Mean Std Dev Min Max
Number of houses 20.61 5.88 9 39
% Response 62% 14% 36% 88%
% Female respondent 65% 18.94% 25% 92.3%
% Home owned 73% 25% 20% 100%
Age (years) 43.39 8.38 32.25 65.4
Education (all adults/household) 4.23 .96 2.59 6.25
Income level 2.58 .53 1.38 4.08
Years living on street neighborhood 12.41 6.19 1.71 28.33
% household recycling 24.4% 9% 6% 40%

 

(N=36)

45
Actual Recycling Participation

The data obtained from the survey on actual recycling participation indicated an
average of 24.4% of the households, or about 5 households in a street neighborhood of 21
houses, participating on a given recycling day. Participation across neighborhoods varied,
ranging from 6% - 40%. Reliability of the measure for actual recycling participation
indicated a Reliability Coefficient Alpha = 0.83.

Results of the Statistical Tests

The assumption for testing the regression hypothesis states that "the relationship
between the dependent and the independent variables is linear and that for each
combination of values of the independent variables, the distribution of the dependent
variable is normal with a constant variance" (Norusis, 1995; p.473). Tests for normality,
independence, linearity, and constant variance were requested to be included in the
multiple regression output, specifically, the ANOVA table, collinearity statistics, and
normality plots. Values for these tests and their interpretation will be discussed

accordingly.

Hypothesis 1. There is a positive relationship between sanse of ppmmunity and reggcling
. The initial step conducted to test this hypothesis was to examine the individual
relationship between the dependent and independent variables using bivariate correlations
statistics. The bivariate correlation statistics were also used to detect if multicollinearity
among independent variables existed. A correlation coeficient r of greater than or equal

to .90 suggests that there is multicollinearity among the independent variables which could

46
render problems in interpreting the results of statistical tests (see Chapter 4, Pedhazur &

Schmelkin, 1991).

Sense of community positively correlated with recycling participation (r = .46) at a
statistically significant level p < .01. Safety was positively correlated with actual recycling
participation (r = .15) but was not statistically significant at the .05 level (p > .05). The
two independent variables sense of community and safety correlated positively (r =. 64)
and at the statistically significant level of p < .05. Table 2 summarize these results.

Multiple regression analysis (enter method) was then conducted to test the
hypothesized relationship between sense of community, safety and recycling participation.
Results indicated that 24% (R square) of the variance in recycling participation was
accounted for by the combined independent variables sense of community and safety at a
statistical significance level of p < .05. The variable sense of community indicated a higher
standardized partial regression coefficient (beta = .61; p < .01) than that of the variable
safety (beta = - .23; p> .05). This finding indicates that the sense of community measure
explained more of the variability on recycling participation than the safety measure.
Linearity, normality, independence, and measure for constant variance for the combined
independent variables were assumed to have been met based on the F value and its
significance level ( F = 4.8, Sig F = .02).

A P-P plot in Figure 3 shows that the sample came from a normal distribution.

The plot shows that the values follow an approximately straight line pattern. If the data
are a sample from a normal distribution, the points fall more or less on a straight line

(Norusis, 1995, p. 452). The tolerance level, which checks for

47

Table 2. Bivariate Correlation Coefficients Between Sense of Community, Safety,
and Recycling Participation.

 

 

Recycling SOC Safety
Recycling 1 .0 .46 . 15
SOC .46 * 1.0 ' .64"
Safety .15 .64" 1.0

 

 

*p < .05 N = 36
**p< .01

48

Dependent Variable: % actual recycling participation in a given recycling day/week

 

Expected Cumulative Proportion

 

1

' nbo 2's .5? .75 1.60

Observed Cumulative Proportion

Figure 3. Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

49
multicollinearity between independent variables, was found to be acceptable at >.10.

Tolerance statistics for the independent variables (sense of community and safety) were
found to be at the .60 level for both variables suggesting that multicollinearity was not a
concern. Table 3 summarizes these results.

Hypothesis 2. Demoggaphic factors (income. home ownership.de education) a
positively associated with recycling participation.

The variables income, home ownership, education, and actual recycling
participation were also subjected to bivariate correlation statistics. Results indicated that
income (r = .37, p < .05) and homeownership (r = .38, p <.05) were the variables that
correlated significantly positively and moderately strongly with recycling participation.
Income and homeownership correlated significantly positively and relatively strongly (r =
.60, p < .01). Collinearity between these variables was considered less of a concern since
the correlation coefficient r indicated lower than the .90 threshold for collinearity (see
chapter 4 of Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Education indicated positive and weak
(statistically not significant) relationship (r = .20), with recycling participation (p > .05).
This suggests that higher street neighborhood level educational attainment does not
correlate with higher level of recycling participation. Table 4 summarizes these results.

The results of the regression test involving the combined demographic factors
indicate that the combined factors accounted for 18% (R square = .18) of the variability of
recycling participation. However, this relationship between the combined demographic

factors and recycling participation indicated no statistical significance at

50
Table 3. Regression of Sense of Community and Safety on Recycling Participation

 

 

Variables B SE B Beta T Sig T
Sense of Community .19 .07 .61 2.95 .01
Safety -.04 .04 -23 ‘ -1 . 14 .26

Multiple R = .49
R sqr = .24

Adj R sqr = .19
Standard E = .08
F value = 4.8
Sig F = .02

51

Table 4. Bivariate Correlation Coefficients of Demographic Factors as Related to
Recycling Participation

 

 

Recycling homeownership education income
Recycling 1.0 .38” .20 .37*
homeownership .38” 1.0 .16 _ .60"
education .20 .16 1.0 .51 **
income .37* .60" .51 ** 1.0

 

 

*p < .05 N=36
"p < .01

52
.05 level. The F value (F = 2.05) and its significance level (Sig F = .13) suggested that the

hypothesized relationship between demographic factors and recycling participation did not
fit the data. The standardized regression coefficients for each variable were low and
indicated no statistical significance at .05 level to recycling participation. Table 5
summarizes these results.

Hypothesis 3. Sense of community predicts recycling participation better than the
demographic factors.

Testing this hypothesis involved putting all independent variables (sense of
community, safety and demographic factors) into one model. Result indicated that the
combined independent variables accounted for 32% (R square = .32) of the variance of
recycling participation at the statistical significance level of p = .05. Like the previous test
conducted for the second hypothesis of this study, none of the demographic factors in the
equation indicated statistical significance on recycling at the .05 level. Also, safety in the
street neighborhood did not indicate statistical significance on recycling participation. at
the .05 level. Only sense of community predicted recycling participation at a statistically
significant level (p < .05). Table 6 summarizes these results.

The tolerance statistics which indicated values ranging from .35 to .58 and an
eigenvalue of greater than 1.0 suggested that multicollinearity between independent
variables was not a concern in this model. Tolerance means that whatever information
each of the independent variable provides with respect to recycling participation has some

uniqueness. Also, the correlation coefficients of r between paired variables

53

Table 5. Regression of Demographic Factors on Recycling Participation

 

 

Demographic Factors B SE B Beta T Sig T
Home Ownership 8.997E-04 7.439E-04 .26 1.29 .24
Education .01 .02 .07 ' .33 .74
Income .03 .04 .18 .712 .48
Multiple R = .42
R sqr = .18
Adj R sqr = .09
Std Error = .08

F value = 2.05
Sig F = .13

54

Table 6. Regression of all Independent Variables on Recycling Participation

 

B

 

Variables SE B Beta T Sig T
Home Ownership 5.157E-04 7.172E-04 .15 .72 .48
Education -.01 .02 -. 11 ' -.56 .58
Income .04 .04 .27 1.01 .32
Sense of community .17 .07 .54 2.35 .03
Safety -07 .04 -39 -1.67 .11
Multiple R = .57
R sqr = .33
Adj R sqr = .20
Std Error = .08

P value = 2.57
Sig F = .05

55
confirmed this finding. No paired variables had correlation coefficient r _>_ .90 (see Chapter

4, Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

A partial correlation test was also conducted to determine the effect of removing a
variable/s from the model, in other words, to control the effects of one or more
independent variable/s on recycling participation. By controlling for the sense community
and safety variables, the demographic factors (income,homeownership, and education)
indicated weak (not statistically significant) correlations with recycling participation (Table
7). By controlling just the safety variable, the relationship between recycling participation
and each of the variables income, homeownership, and sense of community was positive
and statistically significant at p < .05. Education indicated weak (non significant) and
negative correlation with recycling participation at the .05 level (Table 8).

A third partial correlation test involved removing the sense of community variable
from the model. The relationships between all of the remaining variables and recycling
participation were weak, some in negative direction, and none indicated statistical
significance at the .05 level (Table 9).

The last partial correlation test involved removing the demographic factors from
the model. The result indicated that sense of community positively correlates with
recycling participation at a statistically significant level (p = .05). Safety in the street
neighborhood indicate a weak, non significant (p > .05), negative correlation with

recycling participation (Table 10).

56

Table 7. Partial Correlation Coefficients of Demographic Factors and Recycling
Participation Controlling for Sense of Community and Safety.

 

Education Income Homeownership

Recycling -.03 .26 .27

 

p>.05

Table 8. Partial Correlation Coefficients of Sense of Community, Demographic
Factors and Recycling Participation Controlling for Safety.

 

Income Education Homeownership SOC

Recycling .35* .17 .35* .47*

 

*p<.05

Table 9. Partial Correlation Coefficients of Demographic Factors, Safety and
Recycling Participation Controlling for Sense of Community.

 

Income Education Homeownership Safety

Recycling .15 -.02 .23 -.20

 

p>.05

Table 10. Partial Correlation Coefficients of Sense of Community, Safety, and
Recycling Participation Controlling for Demographic Factors.

 

soc Safety

Recycling .3 1* -. 10

 

*p=.05

57
To summarize these results, sense of community was the only variable that

predicted recycling participation among the five variables examined in this study.
Demographic factors and safety were found to have no statistical significance in relation to
recycling participation. The different tests confirmed and supported the hypothesized
relationship between sense of community and recycling participation at the street
neighborhood level. An empirical model illustrating the relationship between recycling
participation and predictor variables (sense of community, safety, demographic factors) is
shown in Figure 4.
Discussion

In view of the findings described above, several topics warrant discussion. This last
section of the chapter will discuss two major relationships that were identified: a) between
demographic factors and recycling participation; and, b) between sense of community
variables and recycling participation.
Demographic Factors and Recycling Participation

The findings for the relationships between demographic factors (income,
homeownership, and education) and recycling participation in the present study were
somewhat inconsistent. Bivariate correlations indicated income and homeownership to
have moderately strong, positive, and significant relationships with recycling participation
at the street neighborhood level. However, multiple regression tests indicated none of the
demographic factors predicted variation on recycling participation. This variation in
results may be explained by the difference between the two statistical procedures used in

finding relationships between recycling participation

58

eaten—muffin 95933— een 833:5 3.810.:— =oo>5om aim—.33.“;— Eutifim .v 9.53

 

somfiaagm wan—280M

BI
work

    

4

 

maoHomm oanEoQ

 

eozcozhm +
Samaoziooset
2:85
a;
Euguasomfim
tommzm
223%ch

m=%=o~om

59
and the demographic factors. Bivariate correlations test is appropriate for analyzing

relationships between individual pairs of variables, which, therefore, becomes an
inadequate procedure for testing relationships between a dependent variable and multiple
independent variables. The use of regression tests is more appropriate because it expands
the characteristics of the relationships found between dependent and independent
variables. According to Kachigan (1986), regression analysis 1) determines whether or
not a relationship exists between variables, 2) describes the relationship in the form of a
mathematical equation, 3) assesses the degree of accuracy of description of prediction
achieved by the regression equation, and 4) in multiple regression analysis, assesses the
relative importance of the various independent variables in their contribution to variation
in the dependent variable. Multiple regression reduces even further errors of prediction
that could be otherwise undetected when only one independent variable is used in the
model (Kachigan, 1986). However, the number of variables can affect the prediction of
the relationship between variables, because with more variables in the model, degrees of
fi'eedom are also reduced (Kachigan, 1986).

The term degrees of freedom describes the number of observations in the data
collection that are free to vary after the sample statistics have been calculated. Normality
of the distribution is affected as the degrees of freedom are increased or decreased by the
inclusion or exclusion of variables in the model. For all practical purposes, the distribution
is very nearly the shape of the normal curve once the degrees of freedom exceed thirty
(Kachigan, 1986). This factor could explain for having an inconsistent result between

demographic factors and recycling participation using the two different statistical tests.

60
The use of bivariate correlation tests was key in analyzing the data in this study,

however, the multiple regression test was the appropriate procedure, since the model
tested recycling participation using more than one independent variable. As the multiple
regression analysis indicated, demographic factors did not predict recycling participation.
This finding implies that a level of recycling participation is attained regardless of level of
income, education of residents and rate of homeownership in street neighborhoods.
Therefore, the second hypothesis of this study is not supported. It does not appear that
recycling participation gets higher with neighborhoods that have higher level of residents'
income, education, and rate of homeownership.

A possible explanation of this finding could be that those neighborhoods with
higher rates of homeownership and higher levels of residents' income and education may
be affected by moderating factors that hinder residents from engaging in the behavior.
The cost (in terms of efforts and money) associated with recycling may be one of them.
Recycling is costly because it is a behavior that needs commitment, and investment of
valuable human resources (i.e., time, efl‘ort, money) and space (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991).
People with higher income and education, and who own their homes are most likely to
have regular firll time jobs, and may find recycling an additional responsibility and a
bother. Residents in neighborhoods with higher levels of these demographic
characteristics may perceive that money received for recyclable material is not equivalent
to the effort and time spent in preparing and sorting the materials.

The cost in recycling has been noted to be the major reason for finding strategies

that would increase convenience for potential recycling participants. Environmental-

61
alteration techniques, such as adding more recycling containers to a particular area,

providing containers to people participating in a curbside recycling program, and changing
the day of curbside pickup to coincide with the regular trash pickup, are some of the ways
that were found to increase recycling. By altering the environment, researchers have made
recycling more convenient and easier to perform, thus reducing the cost of recycling
(Porter et al., 1995).

The notion of ecological fallacy can be another explanation for not finding a
significant relationship between demographic factors and recycling participation in this
study. The previous studies that found significant relationships between demographic
factors and recycling participation did not suffer from the ecological fallacy because those
studies all attempted to generalize about individual behavior from surveys or other
individual level information. This study attempted to find such relationships from
aggregated data (i.e., street neighborhood level income, education, homeownership rates).
The aggregation of the data may have concealed some of the effects of the variables in
explaining variation in recycling participation.

The method used to collect recycling participation data in this study can be another
explanation for the insignificant relationships found between demographic factors and
recycling. This study used actual recycling data, and the observation was conducted
without the residents' knowledge that such observation was taking place. Most of the
studies in the past that found a positive and significant relationship between demographic
factors and recycling participation relied on self-reported participation via questionnaires

or interviews (Everett & Peirce, 1992; Oskamp et al., 1991; Vining & Ebreo, 1990).

62
Everett and Peirce (1992), for example, found a direct relationship between socio-

economic factors and recycling participation using information provided by the block
leaders who were the research participants of their study. Self-reported recycling
participation is noted to concern researchers because it can provide information that is
upward biased rendering the analysis and conclusion questionable (Barker, et al., 1994).
This upward bias in self-reported recycling participation can be due to the social
desirability of the behavior and as Belsie (1990) has indicated, strong endorsement of the
behavior by a majority of people. When people are asked about socially proscribed
behaviors such as recycling, social desirability may tilt self-perceptions about attitudes and
behavior in an inaccurate direction (Thogersen, 1996). Thogersen (1996) cites that the
social pressure surrounding a recycling program presumably is a pressure to recycle rather
than a pressure to put out bins as frequently as possible. The cost involved in obtaining
the actual or observational recycling data often hinders researchers from using this method
in recycling studies (Barker et al.,«1994). Perhaps, the use of observational/actual data
and self-reported data provide two different messages. It is possible that demographic
factors, in reality, may not positively relate to recycling participation. The results of this
study also suggest that the demographic factors/recycling hypothesis is worth further
consideration.

Finding no positive relationship between demographic factors and recycling
participation in this study also led to speculations that those factors that affect
participation in the curbside recycling program are the same for all neighborhoods

regardless of demographic characteristics (homeownership, education, and income). The

63
cost for engaging in recycling (in terms of time and effort) could be the reason that hinders

residents from engaging in the recycling behavior.

For those peOple who are engaging in recycling behavior, it is possible that
increasing number of recycling programs adopted in many communities throughout the
country may have increased their awareness of the value of recycling. The increasing
number of recycling programs may also have impacted those people in terms of being
provided with the opportunity to recycle. According to Goldstein (1993), results fiom a
poll on The mte of Garbage in America survey conducted for the annual issue of
Biocycle (1993) showed that there has been continuous progress in the recycling
movement in terms of increasing numbers of recycling programs being adopted
nationwide. For example, in 1988, 1,042 curbside recycling programs were established.
Four years later, this number had increased to 5,404 (Goldstein, 1993) and 7,375 in 1995
(Steuteville, 1996). It is possible that with more recycling programs established, municipal
waste management offices are able to provide curbside recycling service to a wider
audience. People from all demographic characteristics may have been tapped and
impacted with the different forms or strategies that program developers and implementers
use to increase recycling participation. The effects of prompting (Burn, 1991; Hopper &
Nielsen, 1991) and other antecedent strategies could have encouraged residents of
different demographic backgrounds to engage in recycling behavior.

Though opportunity to recycle does not automatically translate into participation,
it does provide, however, an avenue for increased awareness of the recycling program and

increased awareness for the need for resource conservation. Research has suggested that

64
people's intrinsic motives to conserve can be nurtured and developed (De Young, 1986a;

Vining & Ebreo, 1990). Vining and Ebreo (1990) noted that an individual's conservation
behavior can shift from being initiated and maintained by extrinsic motives toward being
influenced by intrinsic motives. Increasing opportunities to recycle both provides
opportunities for increasing awareness and the development of intrinsic motivation for
resource conservation.

Also, programs and strategies that have been undertaken by public and private
institutions to educate and promote recycling may have had an impact on neighborhood
residents of all demographic backgrounds. Local schools, universities, and the media may
have been effective in promoting recycling. Schools, for example, provide recycling
programs, teaching and instilling in children the value of recycling. Promoting the habit of
recycling to children in school encourages household waste recycling. This scenario is
particularly true of the author: she started recycling about four years ago, after her
preschooler initiated collecting and bagging papers around the house for recycling. A
form of behavior modeling‘has taken place, wherein a child's behavior at school impacted
the behavior of adults at home.

Sense of Community and Recycling Participation

The findings of this study supported the hypothesized relationship between sense
of community and recycling participation. The statistical analysis indicated that as sense
of community in street neighborhoods gets stronger, the rate of recycling participation
increases. This result supports the findings of previous studies that sense of community

promotes people to engage in civic behavior, such as participation in community

65
development activities. It appears that a feeling of sense of community encouraged

residents in street neighborhoods to care actively for one another and their shared
environment.

As noted earlier, a majority of these street neighborhoods indicated having
residents who have lived there longer and owned their homes. Stability in these
neighborhoods may have encouraged residents to engage in social interactions with their
neighbors, and invest their time, effort, and money in different capacities in their
neighborhood. Additionally, having residents who have lived in these neighborhoods for a
longer period of time could have promoted a stronger sense of community among
neighbors or stronger feelings of belonging, social ties or connection, empowerment, and
support. This finding implies that, with sense of community in place in these
neighborhoods, residents may have been consequently encouraged or even pressured to
behave in ways that are socially acceptable to one another. The pressure to put the bin out
in the curb could have encouraged residents to participate in the curbside recycling
program, suggesting that an indirect positive relationship between home ownership and
recycling participation exists. The lack of statistical significance for homeownership's
relationship to recycling participation using partial correlation statistics may again be due
to the aggregation of the demographic factors which may have concealed their relative
effects in explaining variation in recycling participation.

As the finding suggests, a strong sense of community among residents positively
influences recycling participation. So, promoting sense of community can be an effective

strategy for bringing the rate of participation to a higher level. Recycling is a resource

66
conservation behavior which effects are tangible only when there is a collective effort for

reducing pollution and other environmental threats. Identifying strategies to promote
sense of community at the street neighborhood level can be the initial step for increasing
recycling participation. The following section consists of ideas and strategies that hope to
promote sense of community effectively and consequently lead to increased recycling
participation.

Recommendations for Promoting Sense of Community

Neighborhood Development through Physical Planning

People want to be part of a larger network that allows expression of their needs for
intimacy, diversity, usefirlness, and belonging; but the social structures that might allow
people to take action to achieve a sense of community are missing in many communities
(Sarason, 1974). Getting people to interact and connect is the basic requirement wherein
a sense of community can be developed. By planning neighborhoods with appropriate
physical planning strategies, social structures favorable to promoting sense of community
can be achieved. Planning specialists will have a very important role in realizing the
strategies described below.

In street neighborhoods, features of the sidewalk and streets could promote
opportunities for social interaction. A widened sidewalk, reduced trafi'rc lanes and
decreased traffic speed could provide residents suitable spaces for sitting and playing
games. Also, building one or two stationary benches at strategic locations (along the side
of the street) can provide residents a place to gather around and interact. In rural

communities in countries like the Philippines, benches along the streets provide a public

67
space where neighbors interact and share information. It is through these informal

gatherings that a sense of belonging, shared emotional connection, and influence are
enhanced. In the literature, the rural prewar community in America has been described
similarly to the description of the rural Philippine community, in terms of social and

. interpersonal interaction (Efratt, 1974). Contemporarily, a tendency to model community
renewal based on this image of community life has been noted (Louv, 1996).

A special report indicated that parents are realizing that children need more than a
strong family for their safety (Louv, 1996). Parents need to know that when a child walks
out the door there are others who care and who will create a safe environment. Parents
are discovering how to make neighbors out of strangers. One couple in Billings, Montana,
discovered that meeting neighbors can be Simpler than people think. This couple decided
to place a wood and metal bench by their front yard next to a curb which became the
block public meeting space. Neighbors and passersby use the bench as a place to rest
during after-dinner walks, and to meet up with somebody else fiom the neighborhood.
The local kids use the bench as a kind of bus stop for their car pools, and as a place to
gather around to talk and play. A simple bench becomes a strategic structure for an
effective way to promote social interaction and sense of community among neighbors.
With increased interaction, resident participation in community development activities is
more likely to take place.

Social policy and Neighborhood Development
The government at the national, state, and local levels will have an important role

in street neighborhood development. A social policy strategy that existed for years but

68
needs to be aggressively pursued and enacted is to offer technical assistance to help initiate

street neighborhood organization or block organization. The city government and the
police force could assist neighborhoods in organizing crime watches, or the city Waste
Management staff could work with residents in a street neighborhood wide campaign to
increase recycling. Social institutions, like churches, and support services provided by the
local government‘can help organize social activities with the neighborhood residents like
block parties, and holiday or special events. Promoting civic participation by organizing
locally based programs can be both an avenue for developing sense of community among
residents and at the same time empowering residents to take responsibility for making their
environment a safer and livable place.

Policies to increase homeownership could facilitate an increased neighborhood
sense of community. McMillan and Chavis (1986) indicated that homeownership
represents a major financial commitment, and people who have more invested in their
neighborhoods are more likely to feel greater sense of community.

Owning a home has come to symbolize the realization of one's dream. Indeed, it
has been said and written that owning a home is the American dream. Homeownership
provides individuals to invest and commit to the community where they live. It
discourages mobility which promotes creating bonds and relationships with the other
residents. As President Clinton puts it: "Homeownership is one of the best ways to
empower local residents, to give them a stake in the community, and to increase the bonds

that tie people together" (U. S. Housing and Urban Development, July 1996 ). President

69
Clinton's National Homeownership Strategyl can be an effective tool in promoting and

strengthening a sense of community and pride among residents. Housing and Urban
Development and other public and private partnerships across the country have
homeownership initiatives also that can provide potential ways for promoting and
developing street neighborhood sense of community.
Partnerships in Community Development

Community development may be recognized as a new field of study but its
principles are deeply rooted in human experience.2 People have always worked together
in an attempt to improve their situations. Community development is defined in many
ways, but in the contemporary community development literature, several key concepts
such as partnerships, community participation, coalitions, process and the like have
emerged.

Promoting sense of community in street neighborhoods will entail partnerships
between residents and both the public and private sectors. The role of the government as
described earlier can be strengthened with facilitation by academic and other social

institutions. Professors and students in universities can have important roles in promoting

 

' President Clinton’s National Homeownership Strategy starts with his commitment to expand
homeownership opportunities dramatically in America. Specifically, the President asked HUD Secretary
Cisneros to form a nationwide public-private partnership to achieve all-time high homeownership in
America by the end of the century. The Nationals Partners in Homeownership was formed to work
actively toward the goal of moving the national homeownership rate up to 67.5% by the end of the year
2000, generating 8 million new homeowners. The National Partnership has worked hard to carry out a
comprehensive strategy of making homeownership opportunities more affordable and available by cutting
the costs of buying and owning homes; removing discrinrinatory and regulatory barriers; streanrlining and
simplifying the process of building and financing homes; and raising homeownership awareness through
education and counseling, outreach, training, technology, and community involvement (U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, July, 1996). ,

2 According to Booth & Fear (1985) in their paper. Community Development: An old idea comes of age.
The paper was prepared by the authors under the auspices of the Board of Directors of the Community
Development Society. The paper was approved for submission to the U. S. Department of Labor for
potential publication in the department's Occupational Outlook Quarterly.

70

sense of community among residents. They can initiate community organizing, assist
residents in neighborhood development projects by directing them to resources that have
otherwise been unknown to the residents, and create partnerships with existing
organizations or agencies already involved in existing programs in the targeted street
neighborhoods. These partnerships could benefit all parties involved. When appropriate
community development strategies are utilized, street neighborhoods will be provided with
opportunities to improve their conditions while academic personnel get the benefit of
using knowledge to implement change.

A project that has been administered by the Sense of Community research team in
Urban Affairs Programs at Michigan State University exemplifies the partnership between
an academic institution, city government, and non-profit organization in promoting sense
of community and community development in one of the most distressed street
neighborhood in the City of Lansing. Hill Street is a street neighborhood in Lansing with
a high crime rate, low social interaction among neighbors, and a structurally deteriorating
residential area. For several months, the research team initiated a community development
process that lead to a partnership between the Sense of Community research team, the
staff of the Network Center, Food Movers, and the newly organized program volunteers
who are residents of Hill Street. At present, most of the families in Hill Street receive bi-
weekly supply of food from a local grocery store. The project has provided residents
opportunities to interact, work together, and initiate plans to change the conditions of the

street neighborhood. Recently, discussions have begun regarding a street clean up,

71
including removing graffiti from one of the buildings on the street, in addition to other

small projects.

Promoting sense of community entails challenging processes, but the benefits are
real and the effects can be long lasting. With an established sense of community, other
community development projects can succeed. Subsequently, development of other forms

of civic behavior such as recycling can be promoted.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary and Conclusion

This study was conducted primarily to explore the relationship between sense of
community and recycling participation. This relationship was examined using survey data
fi'om 441 respondents of which 65% were female. Using multiple regression analyses,
results indicated that sense of community predicted recycling participation, thus,
supporting the hypothesized relationship between these variables. This finding implies that
as the feeling of sense of community becomes stronger, the rate of recycling participation
at the street neighborhood level increases. The demographic factors (income, education,
and homeownership) did not show a statistically significant relationship. This study,
therefore, supported the hypothesis that sense of community is a better predictor of
recycling participation than the demographic factors.

This study has provided a unique contribution to the body of knowledge in
recycling, because of the emphasis it has placed on the complex psycho-sociological
components of recycling behavior. Because no other study like this one has yet been
documented, it was challenging for the author to find information that she could compare
it to.

This study should provide policy makers and program planners valuable

information for promoting not just recycling participation but many other forms of civic

72

73
behavior. The City of Lansing Recycling and Composting office can primarily benefit

from this study. Staff may focus on implementing the block leader approach in promoting
recycling at the street neighborhood level. Block leaders recruited from street
neighborhoods will be the most effective activator for recycling participation within that
neighborhood. Using block leaders was found to promote recycling participation in
previous researches (Bum, 1991; Hopper & Nielsen, 1991). Also, Everett and Peirce
(1992) found that social tie centralization (a measure of how well block leaders know
residents in their area) predicted recycling participation in their study. A resident from the
same street neighborhood acting as the block leader would be more efl’ective in
encouraging fellow residents to recycle than block leaders conring from another street
neighborhood.

The City of Lansing Recycling office needs to create partnerships with
neighborhood leaders and local community academic and private institutions to promote
recycling and individual awareness and responsibility for conserving natural resources and
safeguarding the environment. F ridgen (1994) indicated that. peOple feel both a lack of
control over and responsibility for some of the environmental threats that currently exist,
despite the fact that most of the threats examined in her study were human generated. It
takes collective effort to promote recycling and other resource conservation behavior.
Knowing that sense of community plays a significant role in residents' recycling behavior,
promoting sense of community as suggested by the different strategies explained above

can be the initial step for increasing recycling participation.

74
Limitations of the Study

While there have been several significant findings and practical applications that
have been pointed out in this study, it must also be noted that there were certain
limitations that would necessitate conducting a similar study in the firture.

A limitation that necessitates replication of this study is the fact that sense of
community is a theoretical construct and despite the efforts to develop a satisfactory
measure of sense of community based on empirical findings, it is still a construct requiring
firrther exploration and consideration. 1.

Another limitation is the measurement of the variables used in this study. The
aggregation of the variables at the street neighborhood level may have concealed
information that could have otherwise determined if individual level information was used.

Tinting of data collection is also considered a limitation for this study. The actual
recycling participation survey was conducted early in the spring, three months after the
sense of community survey for the 36 street neighborhoods was completed. The adverse
weather conditions in the winter months discouraged the author and the staff of the City of
Lansing Recycling and Composting oflice from conducting the actual recycling
participation survey the same time when the sense of community survey was conducted.
Ifthere was a turnover of residents from any of these 36 neighborhoods during these 3
months, accuracy of the actual recycling data could be affected.

Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the limitations described above, it is therefore strongly recommended

that future studies like this one be conducted. Efforts should be directed at finding a

75
measure of the variables that would explain the relationship between sense of community

and individual level recycling participation, since recycling is a behavior that requires the
involvement of individuals. It will also be helpfirl in understanding the relationship
between sense of community and recycling participation if this study is replicated in
communities with varied socio-demographic characteristics and cultural contexts. Such
studies would shed additional insights as to how sense of community relates to recycling

participation.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A
Items Drawn from the Sense of Community Project Questionnaire

76

77

Date:

Interviewer:

Street neighborhood:
Household:

Sen e of Communi uestionnaire

PART I :Street neighborhood Questions
In this section, you will be asked questions about your street neighborhood (describe
geographic boundaries).

How long have you lived on this street neighborhood? [years & months]

I will be giving you a list of statements. Let me know how well each one describes the
people on this street neighborhood, using the following categories:

(1) Strongly disagree or definitely false

(2) Disagree or False

(3) Neutral, not sure, or don ’t know

(4) Agree or true

(5) Strongly agree or definitely true

People on this street neighborhood know each other.

PeOple on this street neighborhood participate in social activities (e. g., pot lucks,
group garage sales, etc.)

It is fairly safe to walk on this street neighborhood at night.
On this street neighborhood people talk to each other about community problems.

People on this street neighborhood feel comfortable borrowing and lending things
fiom each other.

People on this street neighborhood watch out for each other.

People on this street neighborhood comfort each other in times of need.

People on this street neighborhood feel like a family.

Residents on this street neighborhood are able to resolve conflict when it arises.
People on this street neighborhood give rides to each other if needed.

People on this street neighborhood like each other.

78

People on this street neighborhood feel isolated from each other.

People on this street neighborhood influence each others' behavior.

People get things done to improve the street neighborhood.

Residents are committed to the street neighborhood '5 firture.
_ People on this street neighborhood like living here.

People on this street neighborhood have a voice regarding important community
issues.

People on this street neighborhood like living here.
People on this street neighborhood feel that it is a safe place to live.
People on this street neighborhood feel they belong here.

Which of the following categories best describes the financial condition of the people
on this street neighborhood?

1. poor/low income

2. nriddle income, on the lower side
3. middle income

4. middle income, on the higher side
5. well-off

PART 11: Individual Questions
In this section, you will be asked some questions about you or your household.

Do you:

(I) own your home
(2) rent your home

What is your age?

What is your gender?

79

What is the highest level of education (how far in school) that the adults in your household
have reached? [check for each adult]

Junior high/middle school

Some high school

Graduated from high school/eamed GED

1-2 years of college or other training

3-4 years of college

Finished 4-year college (Bachelor’s degree)

Some post-college education

Finished graduate/professional degree (MA, PhD, MD, DDS, etc.)

 

REFERENCES

5 ‘ 3......—
‘4

REFERENCES

Ahlbrandt, R. S. & Cunningham, J. V. (1979). A new public policy for
neighborhood preservation. New York. Praeger.

Bachrach, K. M. & Zautra, A. J. (1985). Coping with a community stressor: The
threat of hazardous waste facility. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, (2), 127-
141.

Barker, K., Fong, L., Grossman, S., Quin, C ., & Reid, R. (1994). Comparison of
self-reported recycling attitudes and behaviors with actual behavior. Psychological
Reports, 75, 571-577.

Belsie, L. (1990). Recycling rebounds across America. Christian Science Monitpr,
July 18, 8.

Burn, S. M. (1991). Social psychology and the stimulation of recycling behaviors:
: The block leader approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, (8), 611-629.

Burn, S. M., & Oskamp, S. (1986). Increasing community recycling with
persuasive communication and public commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
16, 29-41.

Chavis, D. M., & Newborough, J. R. (1986). The meaning of “community” in
community psychology. Journal of Communig Psychology, 14, (4), 33 5-340.

Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban
environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal

of Communig Psychology, 18, (1), 55-81.

Cochrun, S. E. (1994). Understanding and enhancing neighborhood sense of
community. Journal of Planning Literature, 9, (1), 92-99.

Cravers, R. (1988). On the capital paper trail. Environmental Action, 20,
(January), 27-29.

Derksen, L., & Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American
Sociological Review, 58, (June), 434-442.

De Young, R. (1986a) Some psychological aspects of recycling: The structure of
conservation satisfactions. Environment and Behavior. 18, (4), 43 5-449.

80

81

De Young, R (1986b). Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: The
role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems, 18, 341-351.

Dockeki, P. R. (1983). The place of values in the world of psychology and public
policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 60, (3), 108-125.

Dwyer, W. 0., Leenring, F. C., Cobern, M. K., Porter, B. E., & Jackson, J. M
(1993). Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: Research
since 1980. Environment and Behavior. 25, (3), 275-321.

Edelstein, M. (1988). The enabling response: Comm_unity development and toxic
exposure. Neighborhood and Community Environment. New York: Plenum Press.

Efratt, M. P. (1974). Approaches to communig: Conflicts and complementarities.
The Community: Approaches and Applications, 1-32. New York, McMillan.

Everett, 1., & Peirce, J. (1992). Social networks, socio-economic status, and
environmental collective action: Residential curbside block leader recycling. Journal pf

Environmental Sy stems, 21, (1), 65—84.

Fridgen, C. (1994). Human disposition towards hazards: Testing the environmental
appraisal inventory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 101-111.

 

Forester, W. S. (1988). Solid waste: There's a lot more conring. Envirpnmental
Protection Agency Journal, 14, 11-12.

Garneau, J. (1995). Stealing yesterday's news. The Eg'tor Ed Publisher, 128, (3
January), 9.

Geller, E. S. (1995). Actively caring for the environment: An integration of
behaviorism and humanism. Environment and Behavior, 27, (2), 184-195.

Geller, E. S., Winnett, R., & Everett, P. (1982). Pragrving the environment: New
strategies for behavior change. New York, Pergamon.

Goldstein, N. (1993). Keeping your eyes on the prize. Biocyple, 34, (5), 4.

Hamad, C. D., Cooper, D., Bettinger, R., & Semb, G. (1981). Using behavioral
procedures to establish an elementary school paper recycling program. Journal of

Environmental Systems, 10, 149-156.

Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural
Sociology, 20, (June), 11 1-123.

Hopper, J. R., and Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior:
Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling
program. Environment and Behavior, 23, (2), 195-220.

 

82

Hornik, J., Cherian, J ., Madansky, M., & Narayana, C. (1995). Determinants of
recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results. The Journaflf Socio-economics. 24,
(1),105-127.

Humphrey, C. R. (1977). Attitudes and conditions for cooperation in a paper
recycling program. Environment and Behavior. 9, (1), 107-124.

Jacobs, H., Bailey, J ., & Crews, J. (1984 ). Development'and analysis of a
community based resource recovery program. Journal of Applied Behmral Analysis. 17,
(2), 127-145.

Jacobs, H., & Bailey, J. (1983). Evaluating participation in a residential recycling
program. Journal of Environment Systems, 12, (2), 141-152.

Kasarda, J. & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society.
American Sociological Review, 39, (June), 328-339.

Kachigan, S. K. (1986). Statistical analysis: an interdisciplinary introduction to
univariate and multivariate methods. New York: Radius Press.

Katzev, R., Blake, G., & Messer, B. (1993). Determinants of participation in
multi-fanrily recycling programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, (5), 374-385.

Leeming, F. C., Porter, B. E., & Cobern, M. K. (1993). Outcome research in
environmental education: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 8-21.

Levitt, L., & Leventhal, G. (1986). Litter reduction: How effective is the New
York bottle bill? Environment and Behavior. 18, 467-479.

Lorimer, J ., & Myfanwy, P. (1971). Working people: life in a downtown city
neighborhood. Toronto: James, Lewis and Samuel.

Louv, R. (1996). Renewing Community. Parents Magazine, (January), 40-42.

McGuire, R. H. (1984). Recycling: Great expectations and garbage outcomes.
Amerign Behavioral Scientist. 28, (1), 93-114.

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of conununity: A definition and
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.

Norusis, M. (1995). SPSS 6.1 Guide to data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

O'Brien, D. J ., & Ayidiya, S. (1991). Neighborhood community and life
satisfaction. Journal of the Community Development Spciety, 22, (1), 21-3 7.

83

Oskamp, S., Harrington, M. 1., Edwards, T. C., Sherwood, D. L., Okuda, S. H., &
Swanson, D. C. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment
and Behavior, 23, (4) July, 494-519.

Pedhazur, E. J ., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement. Design, and Analysis:
An Integiated Approach. Student edition. Hillsdale, N. J .: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

Philliber, W. W. (1976). Prior training, opportunity, and vested interest as factors
influencing neighborhood integration. Pacific Sociological Review, 19, (2), 231-242.

Porter, B., Leeming, F . C ., & Dwyer, W. (1995). Solid waste recovery: A review
of behavioral programs to increase recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, (2), 122-
152.

Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. J. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and

social interaction in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Communig Psychology,
9, (1), 55-66.

Samdahl, D. M., & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental
concern: specification and test of the model. Environment and Beh_avior. 21, 57-81.

Sarason, S. B. (1974). The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a
Community Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Shrum, L. J ., Lowrey, T., & McCarty, J. A. (1995). Applying social and traditional
marketing principles to the reduction of household waste. American Behavipral Scieniig,
38, (4), 646-657.

Steuteville, R. (1996). The state of garbage in America. Biocycle, 54-61.

Tasaday, L. (1991). Shopping for a Better Environment. New York:
Meadowbrook Press.

Thogersen, J. (1996). Recycling and morality: A critical review of the literature.
Environment and Behavior, 28, (4), 536-558.

Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1982). Neighboring in an urban environment.

Amarican Journal of Communiiy Psychology, 10, 493-509.

Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The
social, cognitive, and affective components of neighboring. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 13, 139-170.

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1996). Movmup to the
American dream: From public housing to private home ownersfl'p, (July), 1-3.

84

Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental
concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 44, 181- l 97.

Verhovek, S. H. (1995, Sept. 2). Thieves find gold in yesterday's newspaper. _'I_‘_l_r_e_
New York Times. 144, pp. N1, L1.

Vining, J ., & Ebreo, A. (1989). An evaluation of the public response to a
community recycling and education program. Socieg and Natural Resources, 2, 23-36.

Vining, J ., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers
and non-recyclers. Environment and Behavior. 221, (1), 55-73.

Vining, J ., Linn, N., & Burdge, R. J. (1992). Why recycle? A comparison of
recycling motivation in four communities. Environmental Management, 16, (6), 785-797.

Wang, T. H., & Katzev, R. D. (1990). Group commitment and resource
conservation: Two field experiments on promoting recycling. iournai pf Applied Spaiai
W, 20, 265-275.

Yankelovich, D. (1981). New rules in American life: Searching for self-fulfillment
. in a world turned upside-down. Psychology Today, 15, 35-91. ,

"Il'llllllllllllllllllllf