3007

This is to certify that the
thesis emitted

RECYCLING AT HOME AND AWAY: DIFFERENCES OF
RECYCLING PARTICIPATION BE'HNEEN RESIDENTS AND NON-
RESIDENTS ON TWO NORTHERN MICHIGAN ISLANDS

presented by
Jessica Lauren Kidder

has been accepted towards futﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Geoggphy

/"l"‘5 j
z/ 44; [/éﬂ/LS»
Major Professor’s Signature
12! ? Log

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

___.-;'.‘l

---’ ‘- *' LtBRsRY-——~

MIChlgu. {late
UniverSIty

————

-e-e-o-----n-.-~-o-a-c--a-e-u--

4i-.-o-o-I-t-o-I-l-n--

 

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

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/Dale0ue.indd-p.‘l

RECYCLING AT HOME AND AWAY: DIFFERENCES OF RECYCLING
PARTICIPATION BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS ON Two
NORTHERN MICHIGAN ISLANDS
By

Jessica Lauren Kidder

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Geography

2006

ABSTRACT
RECYCLING AT HOME AND AWAY: DIFFERENCES OF RECYCLING
PARTICIPATION BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS ON TWO
NORTHERN MICHIGAN ISLANDS
By
Jessica Lauren Kidder
The inﬂuence of residency has yet to be considered as an indicator of recycling
participation. Examination of community composition is important because rarely are
communities homogenous populations of residents. Non-resident additions to
community population are common in Northern Michigan. Participation in recycling
programs may vary with non-local status. The primary question investigated in this
empirical study is: do differences exist between residents and non-residents in
participation of community recycling programs? I hypothesize differences to exist
between residents and non-residents in community recycling programs. I also expect
frequency, duration of visits, outreach, and access to inﬂuence participation of non-
residents in community recycling programs. Objectives of this research include:
determining whether differences in participation in recycling programs exist between
residents and non-residents, identifying outreach initiatives directed at non-residents,
ascertaining duration and frequency of non-resident visit within the community, and

determining whether an association of residency and participation in a recycling program

exists.

To all who believe they can make a difference in the world.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to ﬁrst and foremost, thank my advising committee, consisting of Dr.
Antoinette WinklerPrins, Dr. Jay Harman, and Dr. Sarah Nicholls for their support,
guidance, and input throughout the evolution of this thesis. In addition, I would like to
thank the Department of Geography and Graduate Ofﬁce at Michigan State University
for the ﬁnancial assistance used to conduct this research. Furthermore, I would like to
offer my gratitude to Dr. Alan Arbogast for opening the door to Geography and
enthusiastically supporting me. I am forever grateful to all of the wonderful educators
who have contributed along my educational journey. Finally, I thank my family and

partner Nancy for continual love, encouragement, and always believing in me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
Recycling ................................................................................................ 1
Community ............................................................................................. 2
Residents and Non-Residents ................................................................. 6
Environment ........................................................................................... 7
Recycling Participation ........................................................................... 8
Differences in Participation .................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3. METHODS ......................................................................................... 21
Rationale ................................................................................................. 21
Mackinac Island ...................................................................................... 24
Bois Blane Island .................................................................................... 25
Data Acquisition ..................................................................................... 28
Field Observations .................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................... 33
Results ..................................................................................................... 34
Discussion ............................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 41
Future Studies .......................................................................................... 45
APPENDD( A: Resident Questionnaire ................................................................... 49
APPENDIX B: Non-Resident Questionnaire ........................................................... 51
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 54

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Mackinac Island Recycling Participation .................................................... 34
Table 2: Bois Blane Island Recycling Participation .................................................. 3S

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Chain of Explanation. .......................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Geography of Mackinac and Bois Blane Islands ....................................... 23
Figure 3: Mackinac Island ......................................................................................... 25
Figure 4: Bois Blane Island ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 5: Bois Blane Island Transfer Station ............................................................. 27
Figure 6: Bois Blane Island Recycling Drop-off ....................................................... 28

vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Recycling

The Environmental Protection Agency (1999) deﬁnes recycling as the series of
activities by which discarded materials are collected, sorted, processed, and converted
into raw materials and used in the production of new products. In this study, I am
concentrating on the activity of sorting and collecting discarded materials that are
recyclable.

Recycling is one of the many ways that society engages in environmentally
conscious behavior. Developed with the birth of the environmental movement of the
1960s, recycling has steadily grown as an alternative to environmentally destructive
waste disposal practices such as landﬁlling. Recycling, with its roots in the
environmental movement, is motivated by the concern that the amount of material
generated and disposed of is problematic in and of itself (Carlson, 2001). Awareness of
human impact on the environment and the perception that the separation of waste is
essential to global long-range stability and well-being are often described using popular
labels such as to ‘environmental consciousness,’ ‘environmental patriotism,’
‘environmentally friendly,’ ‘green-living,’ and ‘sustainable.’ These labels tend to be a
source of controversy. Here, I will use such labels only to imply awareness by an
individual of her impact on the environment from the generation and disposal of waste.
This is not to discount the importance of awareness. Collectively, awareness of our
impact on the Earth is growing. Society is becoming more and more aware of the

negative impacts we are incurring on future generations. As a result, people seek to

behave in ways that minimize impact and maximize quality of life today and of the
future. Recycling has prevailed as an activity demonstrating this awareness. Recycling
embodies multiple scales of awareness, collectively and globally as described above, and
locally within communities (Oom Do Valle et al. 2005). Local beneﬁts of recycling
program development include reductions in waste collection, transportation, and disposal
costs, economic efﬁciency, and expression of ecological awareness. By participating in
recycling programs individuals indicate not only consciousness of the natural world, but
also the potential impact recycling can have on the quality of life and community (Oom
Do Valle et a1. 2005).
Community

Communities are the most common sites of recycling programs. Most programs
are designed to function within communities and are streamlined for efficiency. For the
purposes of this investigation I will employ a deﬁnition of commmrity based on a
deﬁnition by Maser (1999). ‘Community’ is deﬁned as a group of people with shared
interests living under and exerting some inﬂuence over the same government in a shared
locality (Maser 28,1999). Individuals within a local community interact with one another
and organizations outside of local government to satisfy the full range of their daily
requirements within the local area. A community is also a site of human-environment
interactions. People are in a reciprocal relationship with their landscape while rooted in a
sense of place (Maser, 1999). From a geographic perspective, a community can be
considered the social, environmental, and political implications of humanity interacting

with the landscape.

As described by Carl Sauer (1925), geography is a ﬁeld of study inclusive of
humans. When we look at a landscape we see human impact on the environment and this,
in turn, has effects on humans. Within this area of study, geography has concern for the
importance of the physical site, as well as with society’s transformation of the site. In
this research the site may be considered the communities on Bois Blanc and Mackinac
Islands. Communities are sites of human-environment interaction and are oﬁen times
under the inﬂuence of local government. To assess the political inﬂuences on the subject
communities and the resultant environmental and social implications, I also take into
account political ecology. Serving as a thematic approach to human-environment
geography, political ecology is a framework of analysis rather than a theory (Robbins,
2004). This framework enables the inclusion of complexity while emphasizing the
differences between political and apolitical ecology. Rather than holding responsible
local and proximate forces, political ecology identiﬁes broader systems and the resultant
inﬂuences (Robbins, 2004). Taking political ecology and human-environment geography
into account in this research is especially useful due to the interaction of local
government, people and the environment. According to the general idea of political
ecology, environmental change and ecological conditions are the product of political
processes. In this particular instance, society is functioning within the ﬁnite communities
on Bois Blanc and Mackinac Islands and their waste management programs are identiﬁed
and put into operation by the local bodies of government. These local bodies of
government are then subject to larger scales of governance such as the county and the
State. In sum, the successive scales of government ultimately inﬂuence the people, who

in turn, inﬂuence the environment. Blaikie and Brookﬁeld (1987) take the framework of

political ecology into a schematic context referred to as the “chain of explanation” as

illustrated in Figure I.

 

 

 

 

SITE H SYMPTOM H PRACTICE H DECISION MAKING H SOCIETY H STATE H WORLD
Figure l. The Chain of Explanation (Blaikie 1998).

 

 

 

 

In this scheme, the chain of explanation starts with the site of environmental
processes and change (Blaikie 1998). For these changes to become an object of inquiry,
recognition of impact by certain elements of society is required. Impacts may be
considered slow-acting, invisible, deleterious, or advantageous for people and may have
varying impacts upon them. Furthermore, these impacts may be approached as
symptoms (often economic) of environmental change brought about by speciﬁc practices
which must be identiﬁed (Blaikie 1998). These practices or activities carried out in the
community may be characterized by the technologies utilized and linked to the
environmental change. Sequentially, these activities are carried out by speciﬁc agents,
often described as decision-makers within their community or immediate decision-
making environment (Blaikie 1998). These decision-makers are part of a wider civil
society that is affected by the state. The state may have slight or extreme inﬂuences upon
both civil society and the agents that brought about environmental change and impact on
society (or often the economy) (Blaikie 1998).

While I have not organized this research to test or demonstrate Blaikie’s ‘chain of
explanation,’ the scheme is effective as a theoretical foundation and framework of
analysis. This research is an empirical study in human-environment geography.

In this instance the sites are the commrmities of Bois Blane and Mackinac Islands.

The generation and disposal of waste within these ﬁnite communities may be approached

as the symptom with recycling participation as the practice. Continuing along the
‘ehain’, the decision makers are residents and non-residents who decide whether or not to
participate. These agents, residents and non-residents, are then inﬂuenced by the
pressures of a larger civil society. Both society and the decision maker are affected by
government ranging from the local to the state and even the global level. The local unit
of government, whether a township or a city, may receive funding from the State, which
in turn may receive funding from the Federal level. Funding is often allocated for speciﬁc
waste management strategies such as recycling programs. Therefore, local environmental
change is ultimately a product of politics at a much larger scale than the acute problem of
waste generation and disposal. Individuals, while seemingly independent, are inﬂuenced
by nested scales of political power that in the end result in impacts on the local
environment within a community.

The physical delineation of community is difﬁcult to describe. “A concrete
notion of community cannot extend beyond the local without becoming an untenable
abstraction” (Maser, 1999:28). Where the lines are drawn to determine the boundary of a
community may be of a subjective nature and surrounded by controversy. In some
heavily populated areas communities seem to blend into one another where a deﬁning
line is obscure or an artiﬁcial designation is implemented such as zoning or a
transportation route. On the other hand, physical attributes of the environment at the site
of a community may serve as unquestioned boundaries. To avoid the indeﬁnite
demarcation of community I will be focusing on two island communities in Northern
Michigan, Bois Blane Island and Mackinac Island. In general, islands provide a

geographically ﬁnite community and simplify the geographic boundary of what is to be

considered as a community. On an island an individual is either on the island or off the
island, whereas on the mainland the speciﬁc boundary of a community may be indistinct.
Residents and Non-Residents

The complexity and organization of these two communities are examined here in
terms of residency, who considers the community home and who is a temporary visitor. I
deﬁne residents in this study as people who live in a community, in a primary residence,
and consider the location home. It is important, however, to acknowledge that residents
have complex rationale for residing within a community and a sense of pride and value
may exist as a result. Bois Blane and Mackinac Islands are historically and culturally
signiﬁcant homelands to the local residents.

Non-residents are deﬁned as temporary additions to community population,
involving relocation for a variety of motives, and ultimately returning to the location of
origin, home. Determining why non-residents are present in a community involves the
study of tourism geography and sociology. These areas of inquiry will not be thoroughly
examined as the objectives of this research, but will be referenced. Both residents and
non-residents organize and conduct their activities within a community and need facilities
and services to meet their needs. As a result of this interaction negative impacts may be
accrued on the physical environment. Waste generation and disposal is an example of
how this interaction may be problematic. Regardless of residency status within any
community, people generate and dispose of waste. The generation of waste, commonly
referred to as garbage, is a direct impact of people interacting with the environment. The
creation of garbage is an unequivocal sign of human presence (Rathje and Murphy 2001).

This is exceptionally obvious on an island. Bois Blanc and Mackinac Islands provide a

geographically ﬁnite sense of community as well as a clear depiction of community
composition. Due to the inherent popularity of islands, non-residents are ﬁequently
present within these communities, especially during the summer season.
Environment

By their very nature islands are vulnerable ecosystems and sensitive to change
(V igrnostad 1999). Much like living organisms, the ‘body’ of an island changes shape
with the inundation and regression of water levels and the forces of erosion and
deposition. With the perimeter completely exposed, islands suffer violent weather events
and winds sweeping across open water. Islands are also areas of ecological sensitivity
due to irregularities in biodiversity. Tens of thousands of years of isolation ﬁ'om the
mainland have resulted in a lack of new species and resident species often evolve into
endemics. Islands are also vulnerable to the introduction of exotic species (V igrnostad
1999). The two islands of study are examples of the delicate environmental balance that
is all too often swayed by human impact. Many issues revolving around biodiversity are
present on both of these Great Lakes islands as species on the Endangered Species List
inhabit Bois Blanc and Mackinac. Hine’s Emerald Dragonﬂy (Somatochlora hineana)
and the Eastern Maesasauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) are examples of
Endangered Species found in these areas (mackinaccountynet). When the environmental
sensitivity inherent on islands is combined with a strong attraction by humans the result is
often devastating if not carefully managed. The generation and disposal of garbage by
humans in an island community is an example of this volatile combination. With islands
having a ﬁnite area, fragile ecosystem and a consistent human presence, how to manage

waste becomes a complex predicament. Disposing of waste on site ultimately reduces the

total amount of land and decreases the quality of the surrounding environment.
Transferring waste off island can become economically strenuous depending on the
amount of waste disposed of and how frequently it is generated. The volatile combination
of popularity and environmental sensitivity becomes even more precarious when
community composition is taken into account. Managing the behavior of waste
generation and disposal then becomes critical to the longevity of the supporting
environment and community.

Recycling Participation

The existence of a recycling program is a proven means to increase recycling
participation of community members (Oom Do Valle et al. 2005. Various programs are
designed to improve speciﬁc attributes of recycling to increase involvement. Access is a
major attribute that inﬂuences participation. When we live in a community we are often
familiar with the program and process of recycling our waste. Frequently communities
will provide outreach to inform and encourage participation in the recycling program. In
some communities, recycling is mandatory for residents while in other localities
recycling is voluntary. This presents a situation where the program design is somewhat
‘weighted’ in favor of those who live in the community.

Non-residents generate and dispose of as much waste as residents and possibly
more due to the lack of familiarity of the area and inconveniences of being away from
home. For example, on a recent trip away from home I ended up staying in the
destination community for three days longer than planned. The change in duration of my
visit along with a drastic change in weather increased my consumption and ultimately

waste generation. Much of the garbage I produced was recyclable plastic water bottles,

newspapers, glass bottles, aluminum cans, paper, and even cardboard. I am an avid
recycler at home and consciously try to be environmentally friendly, but while I was
away I did not collect or sort any of my discarded materials. If this example is remotely
characteristic of non-residents in a community a new element to waste management and
environmental awareness may exist.

Differences in Participation

Differences in recycling participation may have dramatic effects on the waste
management strategy of a community. Recycling programs may be effective for the
resident members of a community, yet consistent non-resident additions could negate
resident efforts if enough waste is generated and not collected or sorted for recycling.
Additionally, differences could also impact local planning efforts and progress toward
sustainable communities. Failing to take into consideration the inﬂuence of temporary
constituents within a community might obstruct attempts to create community vision,
goals, and objectives. Overlooking the agency of non-residents could very well prohibit
an accurate analysis of how a community is functioning presently, let alone where a
community may go in the future. These possible implications are magniﬁed when
considered within the context of island communities due to geographic isolation and
environmental susceptibility.

Positive implications may also exist. There is also the possibility that by raising
awareness of our environmental impacts and of recycling, a community may enhance its
quality of life. Enhancement may come in the form of environmental quality, improved
interrelationships between community members, and the perception that the community

is environmentally conscious. If non-residents were able to experience a sense of pride

and green living from the community they come into, their behaviors and attitudes may
follow suit. This may well lead to a decline in the negative impacts of speciﬁc non-
resident activities such as tourism. Whether the implications of differences in recycling
participation are positive or negative any investigation and analysis will be useful, as very
little is currently known.

As a result, the primary question I investigate in this research is, do differences
exist between residents and non-residents in participation in community recycling
programs? I hypothesize that differences do exist between residents and non-residents in
participation in recycling programs. I also expect frequency and duration of visit along
with increased outreach to inﬂuence the participation of non-residents in the community
recycling program. Objectives of this research include: determining differences of
participation in community recycling programs exist among residents and non-residents
by conducting questionnaires and semi-structured key informant interviews, identifying
outreach initiatives directed at non-residents through ﬁeld observations, ascertaining the
duration and ﬁ'equency of non-residents by administering the questionnaire, determining
if association between residency and participation in community recycling programs exist
by analysis of data from the questionnaires and ﬁeld observations. This study was
conducted in the state of Michigan on two islands, Bois Blanc and Mackinac in Lake

Huron.

10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Studies have demonstrated the beneﬁts of recycling since its birth in the 19605.
Beneﬁts of program development and participation are often proclaimed as: reductions in
waste collection, transportation and disposal costs, and dependency upon land ﬁlling,
economic efﬁciency, job creation, and expressions of ecological awareness during times
of crisis. By participating in recycling programs consumers indicate their consciousness
of the natural world and the potential impact recycling can have on the quality of the
environment (Oom Do Valle et a1. 2005). Governmental agencies from the local to the
national level have recognized recycling as a socially and economically attractive
behavior (Ackerman 1997; Schultz 2002). Legislators and units of government often
implement policies to encourage participation in recycling programs using voluntary and
mandatory standards and economic incentives. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the federal unit of government directed at protecting human health and the
environment, continues to sponsor research on multiple aspects of waste management and
recycling.

In an extensive analysis, Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community Record
Setters Show How (1999) the EPA investigates program design and success. By
comparing 18 communities with record-setting residential or municipal solid waste
reduction levels the report identiﬁes successful waste reduction programs in
communities, businesses, and other organizations and encourages their replication, yet
does not consider the inﬂuences of non-residents. As a result of this report, factors have
been identiﬁed to increase program success. Factors include targeting a wide range of

materials for recovery, encouraging or requiring participation, offering service to multi-

11

family dwellings, and supplementing curbside collection with drop-off collection (EPA
1999). In addition, and essential to success of recycling programs, are education and
outreach, as well as ﬁnding markets for materials. While these factors are valuable to
planning, program success, and increasing involvement, the lack of consideration for
community composition produces relevance only for resident populations.

The EPA report also examines strategies to reach high participation levels.
Making programs convenient, enacting mandates, and instituting pay as you throw
(PAYT) programs are illustrated (EPA 1999). Convenience is a major inﬂuence in
participation. Residents are more likely to participate in recycling programs if doing so is
convenient. To make participation as easy as possible communities are providing
curbside collection of recyclables with the same frequency that curbside collection of
trash that is provided. Providing seasonal and frequent curbside collection of yard
trimmings also enhances convenience, as yard trimmings are a major contributor to
municipal waste (EPA 1999). Offering service to all households and providing adequate
containers for storage and set-outs for recyclables are additional measures communities
take to increase participation. The establishment of recycling drop—off sites at disposal
facilities is also a method of increasing involvement, especially for residents who self-
haul trash (EPA 1999).

Local requirements and mandates encourage the participation of residents in
recycling programs. Many communities with successful programs and high involvement
have a local ordinance that either requires residents to separate waste or bans them from
including recyclable materials with their trash (EPA 1999). On a larger scale,

communities, including those in Michigan, may have to meet state mandates and goals.

12

Mandates and requirements have been shown to be useful in the success of recycling
programs aimed at increasing involvement of residents of a community. These studies do
not mention the possibility of participation and waste generation by non-residents. If
regulations are targeted solely at residents, communities with high populations of
temporary people may experience disparities in results and program success.

The utilization of PAYT systems may result from local and state requirements.
These systems cover solid waste costs directly rather than through the tax base or a ﬂat
fee. PAYT serves as a direct economic incentive for households to reduce their trash
(EPA 1999). Conversely, in a survey conducted by Reschovsky and Stone (1994),
curbside recycling pickup was shown to increase the probability of recycling more than
unit pricing of garbage. In addition, Fullerton and Kinnaman (1996) suggest
communities with pay as you throw systems, or unit pricing, may be faced with the
possibility of increases in illegal forms of garbage disposal such as burning, littering, or
using a commercial dumpster. These studies indicate the PAYT system leads to a variety
of outcomes for recycling program success and increasing involvement. These outcomes,
however, do not include the existence of non-resident additions to the community. This
omission could have negative inﬂuences on the local environment and waste
management strategies. This may be especially problematic when non-residents are
unfamiliar with the process of disposing of waste.

Even though the EPA suggests curbside collection to be a more effective way to
increase collection, supplementing this service with a drop-off center can expand
participation into rural areas. Residents in rural communities are more likely to self-haul

garbage, therefore making a recycling drop—off practical (EPA 1999). Drop-off centers

13

can also be a site of non—resident participation, yet this is not considered in the EPA’s
examination of program success. Furthermore, drop-off facilities may sometimes accept
a wider variety of materials and accordingly might be more attractive to both resident and
non-resident involvement. Convenience again plays a role in the effectiveness of this type
of recycling program. Access to the drop-off site is again considered in terms of resident
participation, leaving non-resident convenience and waste inputs unaccounted for.

Apart from of services offered, education and outreach are ubiquitous among the
communities with record-setting recycling participation included in the study by the EPA.
Considering that each community has a unique program, providing residents with
knowledge about ‘how’ and ‘why’ to recycle is necessary for accurate and effective
participation. This illustrates a major gap in the purpose of education and outreach
initiatives. While educating residents is important, the situation of the non-resident may
become even more signiﬁcant considering the variations among community recycling
programs. Such initiatives include: fact sheets, pamphlets, newsletters, recycling guides,
posters, inserts, calendars, radio and newspaper ads, hotlines, public service
announcements, local cable appearances, and booths at community events. Aside from a
few of these methods, most are applicable and effective for residents of a community. It
could be assumed that such methods are targeted directly toward residents and non-
resident interest is coincidental. Previous studies overlook speciﬁc initiatives aimed at
anyone aside from residents in a community. Foltz and Hazlett (1999) also conclude
outreach efforts coupled with educational and publicity campaigns assisted by local
education personnel, environmental organizations, or other citizen groups are typical

features of program design of communities with the most successful recycling efforts.

l4

Based on earlier research, it is clear program design is central to success and
involvement; still previous studies suggest additional indicators of public participation
and recycling program performance.

F012 and Hazlett (1999) take into account local population, socioeconomic, and
political characteristics as indicators of recycling performance of mandatory and
voluntary community programs. The results suggest socioeconomic and political
characteristics do not affect recycling success, when measured in terms of participation
and diversion. Their inclusion of local population is limited to demographic,
socioeconomic, and political variables of households. Reschovsky and Stone (1994) also
include similar variables in their analysis of recycling indicators. Independent variables
used in this study consist of income, education, age, household size, number of hours per
week in paid employment, marital status, gender, policies, awareness of drop-off centers,
and awareness of the recycling program. At the same time these previous studies
incorporate a wide array of variables, the inﬂuences of community composition and from
non-resident additions to communities and waste generation remain unaccounted for.

Oskamp et al. (1991) found living in a single-family dwelling to be the strongest
predictor of participation in a curbside program in a study conducted in California. The
second strongest predictor was having friends and neighbors who recycle. Peer
participation and modeling have been identiﬁed as important determinants. Despite this
study focusing on resident participation, this could possibly be assumed to be useful in
determining indicators of non-resident involvement. This may be especially true if non-
residents are acquainted with residents who recycle in the community. As emphasized by

Devall (1988) and Leiss (1976), the social and cultural contexts in which pro-

15

environmental behavior occurs has been almost disregarded in academic studies and the
effects of context on behavior are nearly unexamined. More current research has
investigated social contexts in terms of demographic variations (Derksen and Gartrell
1993; Oskamp et al 1991, Schultz and Oskamp 1996; Schultz, G. 2002; Ackerman 1997;
Berger 1997; De Young 1990; Fullerton and Kinnaman 1996; Foltz and Hazlett 1999;
Goldenhar and Council 1993; Howestein 1993; Lansana 1992; Margai 1997; Oom De
Valle et al 2005, Oskamp et a1 1991; Reshovsky and Stone 1994). Whether or not
community composition and non-resident inﬂuence is considered within social and
cultural contexts, the same can be said of the exclusion of community composition and
non-residents inputs in academic studies.

Access to recycling places corresponds to convenience and has been examined in
both resident and non-resident contexts. Lee and Ralston (n.d.) examined the inﬂuence of
signage and proximity of recycling bins on the volume of recycling materials generated at
a hotel in Salt Lake County, Utah. Their work considers recycling as a basic component
of sustainability and sustainable tourism (see Lee and Ralston n.d. for more information
regarding sustainable tourism). Closer collection receptacle proximity may contribute to
increasing voluntary participation in recycling programs (Lee and Ralston n.d.). Signage
is an additional factor that may provide further support for voluntary participation. The
importance of accessibility and convenience is also stressed by Lansana (1992) in
research aimed at distinguishing recyclers ﬁ'om non-recyclers. Lee and Ralston do
examine recycling participation of non-resident hotel guests. An additional study by
Cummings (1997) examines a similar context of hotel guest waste generation at a Las

Vegas mega-resort. The contexts of a hotel or resort are instances of non-resident

16

presence, yet the controlled environment of a hotel may not be reﬂective of a community
and all nonoresidents recycling behaviors.

In a similar area of study as access and convenience, effort has also been
considered an indicator of recycling participation (Schultz and Oskamp 1996).
Environmental concern was found to predict recycling involvement when the amount of
effort was relatively high (Schultz and Oskamp 1996). However, when the amount of
effort required was lower or when incentives were added environmental concern was not
as inﬂuential. Schultz and Oskamp (1996) demonstrate when taking into account the role
of attitudes in predicting behaviors, it is crucial to consider the context in which the
behavior is taking place, and that the effort required for the behavior is one aspect of that
context. In this study, the ﬁndings were in reference to resident participation, yet these
results are applicable to non-residents as suggested by the consideration of context. The
necessity of including context into any investigation related to recycling behaviors and
attitudes suggests a need for examination of community composition and non-resident
impacts.

In general, previous studies do not speciﬁcally focus on Michigan or Great Lakes
islands as areas of study. Many states such as Michigan may have reduction goals,
requirements, and policies that inﬂuence local communities. These state level polices
encourage the local level to implement waste reduction programs (EPA 1999). In
Michigan, policy sets the goals of 40% incineration, 25% recycling, 10% composting,
10% source reduction, 10% landﬁlling, and 5% reuse rates by 2005 (MRC 2001).
Legislators in Michigan mandated that the Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality’s Waste Management Division (MDEQWMD) develop a plan to collect

l7

recycling data in 1996. Due to a lack of funding very little progress resulted from the
1996 mandate. The MDEQWMD is currently unable to conduct annual measures that
would provide an indication of how well Michigan is meetings the goals set out in the
1988 policy.

The Michigan Recycling Coalition (MRC) has discussed and addressed ways to
remedy the need for recycling data. As a result, a solid waste characterization study was
proposed, yet due to economic constraints the MRC narrowed its focus to the collection
of information on the types and quantities of materials recycled in the State. Three main
objectives to accomplish this study were acknowledged as: to develop an inventory of
the State’s residential recycling programs, and to gather information about businesses that
move materials collected from these programs to points of processing and marketing for
end-use; to collect data on the types and volumes of municipal solid waste diverted from
disposal through programs in order to calculate recycling rate; to collect ﬁnancial and
employment information from recycling processors to demonstrate the signiﬁcant
contributions industry makes to Michigan’s economy (MRC 2001).

In a State where tourism was a $16 billion dollar business in 2005 (Holecek
2005), the inclusion of non-resident generation and disposal of waste should be a priority
and taken into account in research on recycling in Michigan. Furthermore, a report
produced by the MDEQWMD in response to questions raised at the June 16, 2003,
Beverage Container and Recycling Task Force meeting, the opportunities for Michigan
residents to recycle were analyzed. The MDEQWMD has indicated that recycling in
Michigan lags behind all Great Lakes States. In Michigan, 37% of residents have access

to curbside recycling and 55% of residents have access to recycling drop—offs (MRC

18

2001). Every resident in Michigan has the opportunity to return deposit beverage
containers that normally get recycled (MDEQWMD 2003). The report proposes
improvements such as increased statewide support for increasing recycling opportunities,
expansion of the current beverage container deposit system, and creation of a dialog on
recycling issues among stakeholders in communities, recycling and waste industries, and
state government (MDEQWMD 2003). Inclusion of non-resident contributions to the
generation and disposal of recyclable materials was not discussed in this report.

A 2002 article published in the Wall Street Journal (Fialka 2002) asserts that for
the ﬁrst time in 20 years Americans are throwing away more aluminum cans than they
recycle. Data used in this article show Americans are recycling less now than they did in
1990 even with overwhelming support for recycling. More cans are being emptied away
from home and Americans are more likely to recycle at home than at the ofﬁce and on
the road. On top of beverage container challenges, non-resident impacts are left out of
the wider discussion of increasing participation, convenience, incentives, and market
expansion in Michigan as well as the nation at large.

Despite previous research insufficiently accounting for and addressing non-
resident generation and disposal of waste in communities the topic is slowly coming to
the forefront. Only months ago, in April 2006, the EPA released a brief article titled
Recycling on the Go: Recycling Places in Public Spaces. The article reveals Americans
seem to forget about recycling when they entertain themselves at venues such as the
National Cherry Blossom Festival, at sporting events, or in theaters. The reason for the
disparity of recycling participation is linked to a lack of public places other than trash

bins for bottles, cans, and other materials normally recycled (EPA 2006). Two startling

19

facts are presented. First, Americans take and toss about one-third of all single beverage
containers away from home and nearly 90% of the plastic water bottles used get tossed
out or become litter. Second, in the years spanning 1990-2000 Americans wasted more
than seven million tons of aluminum cans, which is enough to manufacture 316,000
Boeing 737 airplanes (EPA 2006). These facts may represent the inconsistency of
including community composition in related studies.

As a result of the 2006 report, the EPA is launching a national campaign to put
recycling places in public spaces by making recycling easy and convenient. The EPA
presumes national level policies and incentives and educational campaigns are required to
increase the institutionalization of recycling in public spaces. State and local
communities must also devote the same resources and research into public-space
recycling as they currently apply to residential recycling programs (EPA 2006). The
same is particularly true for communities such as Great Lakes Islands in Michigan, with
high volumes of non-residents and fragile ecosystems. Recycling away from home is the

challenge.

20

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

This section describes how I carried out the research objectives presented in
Chapter One. To begin, I provide the rationale I used for choosing the study site. Next, I
describe each of the two study sites and how data was acquired. Finally, I explain the

ﬁeld observations made during this study.

Rationale

Four key reasons justify my decision to study differences of recycling
participation between residents and non-residents on Bois Blane Island and Mackinac
Island. First, islands tend to be attractive places to live and visit. In Michigan, islands
are top tourism (non-residents) destinations. Islands seem to capture people’s
imaginations as romantic, historical, natural or secluded places. Considering the vast
majority of the nation’s population now lives in urban areas, the remoteness of islands is
often sought (for various reasons) to get away ﬁom it all. In addition to being attractive
to visitors, islands in Michigan are home to many residents. The combination of
residents and non-residents within these island communities makes for the ideal location
to examine differences in recycling participation. Secondly, the geography of Bois Blanc
and Mackinac Islands allows for a concise deﬁnition of community. Islands are naturally
geographically isolated; as a result deﬁning the boundaries of the existent communities is
straightforward. There are also no issues of whether an individual is in between
communities or within multiple communities, for you are either on or off the island. The
third rationale for studying the two islands is their natural environment. In general,

islands are vulnerable due to ecological sensitivity and are prone to irreversible changes.

21

This creates a signiﬁcant environmental predicament when many people desire to
experience these islands. The predicament is complicated by the fact that many
individuals are attracted to Bois Blanc and Mackinac for the quality of the environment,
yet their presence has dramatic impacts on the ecosystems. Finally, Bois Blanc and
Mackinac Islands are within the same county, Mackinac, in Michigan. This is useful
because both islands are subject to the same policies and regulations that counties (may)
impose on their townships.

Mackinac County encompasses two cities and eleven townships and contains
691,000 acres, 1,093 square miles, 230 miles of shoreline, and 135,000 acres of federal
forest (Mackinaccounty.net, 10/28/06). State and federal land ownership accounts for
54% of the total land area. According to the 2000 census, the population of Mackinac
County was 11,943 and the labor force consisted of 7,450 people with a summer
unemployment rate of 1.6 and winter rate of 21 .7.T'he largest seasonal employer is the
Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island and the largest year round employer is the Sault Tribe of
Chippewa Indians.

This study was a result of personal experience with recycling participation
differences while I was on vacation. This led me to contemplate the behaviors of others.
It is worth noting that I grew up on Bois Blane Island and have also ﬁ'equently visited
Mackinac Island over the course of 20 years. My personal experience within these two
communities was beneﬁcial to research, as I was already familiar with the geography and
people. As a result, I felt that residents were socially accessible.

Permission to conduct this research on Mackinac and Bois Blane Islands was

granted by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board; Committee on

22

Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). My UCRIHS application, IRB # X06-
551 Category 1-2 EXEMPT, was approved on July 10,2006 and is valid through July 9,

2009.
“:1? U moranl
J'a____ HerseshoegBa

|.j'ﬂrildemess O
.1. «i Evil

 

   
 
 
  

 

   
    
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 

St Ignace
‘ Roma
law
/ \-.__
Macki - aw Cltxj’
'\ Mackinawl _ m
§ State Forest?e

W
'Ullildemess, P LMackinaw
State .Park LI. State Forestj

rr (Cafe p Lake, A
/ Iota—I: kinalu. . _
Sttate Forest “I x _ ' ‘ ‘
:kinaw hrtaclgiriaw State Forest

(Fare 51 tavefing _

’ 5‘10

  
   

Mackinaw
State Forestau

 

  

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 220mi
r—ﬂ

 

 

Figure 2: Geography of Mackinac and Bois Blane Islands. The black arrow,
bottom inset, shows the location of Bois Blanc and Mackinac Islands in relation to the
State of Michigan. The gray arrow (center) shows the location of Bois Blane Island in
the Straits of Mackinac situated between the lower and upper peninsulas. The white
arrow (upper left) shows the location of Mackinac Island northwest of Bois Blane

( MapQuest 1/29/06; consultwebs.eom 10/30/06).

 

 

 

23

Mackinac Island

Mackinac Island is located at 45 51’04“N, 84 36’59“W in Mackinac County,
Michigan. It is the smaller of the study sites with 4.4 miles squared in area and is located
in Lake Huron, at the eastern end of the Straits of Mackinac. The Island has roughly 500
year-round residents and the population increases dramatically to an average of 15,000
people per day dtning peak tourist season, July-August (Mackinaccounty.net, 10/28/06).

Annually, Mackinac Island accommodates over one million visitors in addition to
its 500 residents. The southwestern side of the Island is heavily commercialized with
many stores, hotels, bars, restaurants, and recreation facilities. Bicycles and horses are
the main mode of transportation here as cars, motorcycles, and ATVs are prohibited. The
northeastern side of the island remains relatively undeveloped when compared to the
main street area of the southern side.

Waste disposal and recycling are highly regulated on Mackinac Island. Recycling
is mandatory for island residents. A curbside program is provided for residents and
businesses. Blue curbside bins for separated recyclable materials are provided by the city
and residents must purchase bags for non-recyclable waste. A drop-off site is located at
the public boating facility. This site accepts plastic 1, 2, and 4, metal/aluminum, glass,
and newspaper.

The local government of the City of Mackinac Island is composed of an Assessor
Assessor Elect, City Alderman, Clerk, Fire Chief, Mayor, Mayor Assistant, Supervisor

and Treasurer (Maekinaccountnet, 10/28/06).

24

 

35mm

 

Figure 3: Mackinac Island. An oblique aerial photo of Mackinac
Island (hunts-upguide.com. 10/30/2006). This image illustrates
the development along the southern shore. North is located at

the top of the photo.

 

 

 

 

Bois Blane Island

Bois Blane Island is located at 45 43’57"N, 84 28'40"W in Mackinaw County,
MI. The island is approximately 12 miles (19km) long, 4 miles (6.4k) wide and is in
Lake Huron almost directly north of the City of Cheboygan, Cheboygan County. Bois
Blane has a total area of 49.0 miles squared and 35.3 miles squared of it is land and 13.7
miles squared of it is water (28.04%). The local government on Bois Blane consists of a
planning commission and township board made up of an assessor, clerk, deputy sheriﬁ‘,
supervisor, treasurer, and two trustees (Mackinaccounty.net, 10/28/06). According to the

2000 census, there were 71 year-round residents and a population density of 2.0/mi2

25

(0.8km2). Tourism increases island population beginning in May and tapering off in
November with close of riﬂe season. The local ferry boat company estimates three
thousand visitors during July and August, however, this estimation is unsubstantiated.
The current waste management program provided by the Bois Blane Island
Township utilizes a PAYT system. Users are charged $2.00 for each bag of garbage.
Metal items and appliances are separated for disposal. A private waste removal company
located in the City of Cheboygan comes by ferry boat once a month to empty the
dumpsters. The dumpsters are located within a fenced in area known as the Transfer

Station. The Transfer Station is operated on a schedule and is not available 24/7.

 

 

 

Figure 4: Bois Blane Island. A satellite image of Bois Blane Island (www.bois-
blanc.com_10/30/06). North is located in the upper left center of the image. The
right arrow indicates the relative location of the recycling drop-off site provided
by a local non-proﬁt organization. The arrow to the left indicates the location of
the township dock and transfer station.

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

 

 

Figure 5: The Bois Blane Island Transfer Station. Note the fence in the
background. This image only captures half of the area. The other half includes
a reefer for metal waste as well as a large horizontal cylindrical bunting barrel.
Also note the man in the background (upper right) for scale. (photo by J.
Kidder. 2006)

 

 

 

 

Recycling is voluntary on Bois Blane Island as the local non-proﬁt organization,
the Bois Blane Island Stewardship Institute (3181), recently launched a recycling drop-off
site in September, 2006. Glass, plastic 1 and 2, and tin/aluminum are accepted. Data on
volume and use are not available therefore; most of the data collected on Bois Blane does
not reﬂect this new program. The drop-off site is located roughly two miles east of the
township dock on Bois Blane. Materials collected at this site are transferred off island to
Emmet County by the organization’s staff. Staff distributes the materials at a drop-off

center provided by Emmet County, roughly 90 minutes from Bois Blane Island.

27

 

 

Figure 6: The Bois Blane Island recycling drop-off. The drOp—off bins (right) are
made from reused 55 gallon drums (photo by N. Hole, 2006).

 

 

 

Data Acquisition

Two questionnaires were distributed between July and September of 2006.
Participants were approached indiscriminately and based on their perceived availability,
asked to complete the questionnaire. I did not approach or inquire of individuals who
appeared to be busy or preoccupied. One questionnaire was tailored speciﬁcally to
residents (QR) and the other toward non-residents (QNR) (see appendix A and B for
actual questionnaires). The QR is consisted of nine questions. Question I asked

participants if they are a resident of the Island and if so how long. Question 2 asked if the

28

participant owns property on the island, while question 3 asked how often oﬂ‘ island
travel occurs. Questions 4—4e are related to recycling participation. Within the question 4
series, participants are asked why they recycle, if they recycle when off island, what
materials are recycled, how they became aware of recycling on the island, and whether or
not the questionnaire increased their awareness of recycling. Questions 5-9 were intended
for participants who do not recycle and asks why they do not recycle, how is garbage
disposed of if not recycled, do they recycle off island, and if the questionnaire has
increased their awareness of recycling at home and away. In addition, question 8 asks
respondents what would help them to participate in recycling programs and provides
examples such as curbside pickup, drop—off bins, incentives, more information and other.

QNR was also composed of nine questions. Questions 1 and 2 asked participants
if they are residents, if they own property, and if so how long. Questions 3 and 4 looked
into ﬁ‘equency and duration of visits by non-residents. Recycling was dealt with in
questions 5-7b and asked if they recycle while on the island, at home, what is recycled,
why they recycle, and how they became aware of recycling on the island. Non-recycling
participation was covered in questions 8-9 and inquired about why respondents do not
recycle, how waste is disposed of if not recycled, what would help them to participate
(the same examples were provided as in QR) and whether or not the questionnaire has
increased their awareness of recycling at home and away.

On Bois Blane Island non-residents were surveyed during the 45 minute ferry
boat ride back to the mainland. This setting provided an ideal setting to administer the
questionnaire, as individuals were a captive audience for the duration of the ferry ride.

Residents on Bois Blane were more difﬁcult to measure due to their small population. A

29

local unconﬁrmed estimate of residents is roughly 25 people, however the 2000 census
reports 71 residents. Residents were commonly asked to participate while waiting for
their meals at the general store. Questionnaires were administered from July-September,
2006.

Due to the massive increase in population during peak tourist season, July-
September, Mackinac Island participants were surveyed mid- September, 2006. During
the peak months, July and August, both residents and non-residents were too busy to be
contacted. Administering the survey instrument in late September, 2006 proved to be
worthwhile as the large crowds and busy commercial areas had subsided enough to where
I was able to talk to respondents for more than a few seconds. Residents were surveyed
while working in the commercial establishments on Main Street. Due to the decrease in
visitor populations, residents were often idle and eager to participate. Non-residents were
asked to complete the questionnaire in a variety of settings. The central park, main street
area, commercial establishments, and line for the ferry boat were the most common
places I found volunteers.

I analyzed the data collected in this study using a descriptive approach. I did not
consider quantitative approaches such as regression and modeling due to the nature of the
study and my small sample size. In addition, previous studies heavily relied on
quantitative methods that resulted in moderately inconclusive data. The data in this
investigation are ultimately an expression of awareness. Choosing to recycle originates
ﬁ'om an awareness of behavior and perceived environmental and social beneﬁts.
Awareness of behavior is ultimately a matter of an individual’s values; therefore this

study does not rely on quantitative methods for data analysis. The majority of previous

30

studies have used statistical methods to analyze data and draw conclusions. These studies
have produced various results but also with a signiﬁcant amount of inconclusivencss.

It is also a goal of this study to approach the research question, do differences
exist between residents and nonresidents in participation in community recycling
programs, from a different angle using a new perspective and mindset. The decision to
forge an alternative course of investigation is due to the understanding that the same
mindset that created the problem cannot be used to solve the problem if there is any
expectation of a functional solution. An awareness of self or an awareness of the role of
the individual in the collective is perhaps the underlying question behind differences in
recycling participation. Participating in a community recycling program is a way of
demonstrating awareness of the individual’s role and impact in a community.
Participating in recycling programs is a manifestation of personal awareness of ones
impact on the environment and society. An individual’s sense of values are expressed in
the collective mirror; the environment (Masser, 1999). The amount of waste generated by
an individual is a tangible expression of their relationship with the environment.

Field Observations

In addition to the two questionnaires, I conducted ﬁeld observations from July —
September, 2006. To conduct these observations I casually lingered around the waste
receptacles, drop off sites, and transfer station dining daylight hours on fair weather days.
On Mackinac Island I observed individuals in a public setting disposing of waste in the
provided trash bins. I also observed boaters using the drop-off site at the public marina.
The individuals were aware of the signage placed around the drOp-oﬂ‘ site and separated

their waste accordingly. The three small signs at the drop-off area were the only visible

31

methods of outreach observed. Residents were not observed placing materials into
curbside bins, yet the bins were seen full out on the curb. It is also worth noting that a
signiﬁcant amount of litter was seen on the southwestern shores of Mackinaw Island.
Some of the observed litter was recyclable materials such as empty water bottles and
aluminum cans.

On Bois Blane Island I walked around the public marina and transfer station area.
Methods of outreach such as signs and ﬂyers were not existent for the PAYT system
within the Transfer Station. A small sign with hours of operation exists at the gate of the
Transfer Station. I had the opportunity to dispose of my own waste at the Bois Blane
Island Transfer Station where I also was able to observe other individuals. The Transfer
Station attendant meets every vehicle and provides instructions on which dumpster to
place bags and directs metal waste, appliances, and burnable waste to the corresponding
receptacles. The attendant also counts the number of bags thrown away and collects the
$2.00 per bag fee.

During July and August, 2006 no visible methods of outreach were observed to
encourage and inform residents of recycling. In late September, 2006, with the launch of
the recycling drop-off by the local non-proﬁt organization, the Bois Blane Island
Stewardship Institute (BISI) placed a large hand-painted sign along the road. The sign is
made of driftwood to accommodate the local character and is placed directly above the
drop-off bins (see ﬁgure 6). The September/October 2006 issue of the non-proﬁt’s
newsletter featured the recycling drop-off and provided information with instructions
about how to participate. Staff indicated that approximately 60 newsletters had been

distributed by October, 2006.

32

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The biggest difference between study sties is that recycling on Mackinac Island is
mandatory for residents, whereas on Bois Blane any efforts to recycling are voluntary.
Non-residents on both Islands are not required to participate and a drop-off site exists to
encourage voluntary involvement. At total of 55 questionnaires were completed. On
Mackinac Island ﬁfteen residents and fourteen non-residents participated. On Bois-Blane
Island thirteen residents and thirteen non-residents completed questionnaires. In my
hypothesis I speculated frequency, duration, outreach, and access to inﬂuence possible
differences of recycling participation between residents and non-residents.

The following two tables (Table 1 and 2) illustrate data related to frequency of
visit, duration of stay, and outreach. Access was also a hypothesized variable to
inﬂuence possible differences of recycling participation between residents and non-
residents. On Mackinac Island recycling is mandatory for residents; therefore, access
was not inﬂuential due to its availability and requirements. Non-residents, however,
indicated employment in a commercial establishment and housing requirements to
provide access to the local mandated recycling program. One non-resident described
unintentionally discovering the public drop-off site at the boating facility. Overall, non-
residents, who were not employees on Mackinac Island did not recycle while on the
island. Those reporting no afﬁliation with the mandates indicated curbside pickup, more
information, a community recycling program, clearly marked drop-off bins, and
incentives as approaches to access that would increase their participation.

On Bois Blane Island, recycling is a voluntary endeavor. Residents reported

curbside pickup, clearly marked drop-off bins, a community recycling program, local

33

mandates and requirements, and incentives as types of access desired. Two residents
described taking recyclable materials off island to downstate locations to gain access to a
recycling program. One non-resident reported not wanting to have to pay for recycling,
while two other non-residents were completely unaware of any variation of access to
recycling on Bois Blane. In general, non-residents on Bois Blane Island indicated
curbside pickup, clearly marked drop-off bins, a community recycling program,
incentives, and more information as desired means of access.

Results

Tables 1 and 2 present the information pertaining to recycling participation. The data
related to frequency, duration, and access are explained in detail within the discussion

section on page 37. The survey instnnnents are included in the Appendices.

 

 

 

 

Table l.
Mackinac Island Recycling Participation
Mackinac Recycles at Recycles Away Awareness of
Island home recycling
(n = 29) increased by
survey
Residents (15) 15 (100 %) 13 (86%) 60% yes
Non-Residents 12 (80%) ll (73%) 64% yes
(14) recycle on the
island

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.
Bois Blane Island Recycling Participation
Bois Blane Recycles at Recycles Away Awareness
Island home increased by
(n = 25) survey
Residents (13) 9 (69%) 9 (69%) 77% yes
Non-Residents 10 (77%) 9 (69%) 84% yes
(13) recycle on the
island
Discussion

The data generated from the questionnaires have resulted in a number of ﬁndings.
The original hypothesis suggested the existence of differences in participation of
recycling programs between residents and non-residents. As illustrated in Tables 1 and 2,
differences are present between residents and non-residents on Mackinac Island surveyed
in this study. All of the 15 participating residents either recycled at home or sometimes
recycled at home. This is likely due to the mandatory recycling participation enforced by
the local government on Mackinac Island. Access is inﬂuential, yet only because it is
provided and required. Off island recycling by Mackinac Island residents did not seem to
be inﬂuenced by ﬁequeney of travel as much as experience and family/friends. This
may suggest the social and experiential contexts of recycling participation are more
inﬂuential than outreach, yet this may also be inconclusive due to the requirements on

Mackinac. The questionnaire itself did not seem to inﬂuence residents to participate both

35

home and away. This could likely be due again to the local mandates and consistent
experience with a recycling program.

The mandated program on Mackinac Island may have been stimulated by funding
from the Solid Waste Alternative Program (SWAP). The Quality of Life Bond proposal
was approved in 1988 and authorized $150 million, in the form of grants and loans, to be
made available to both public and private entities to help reduce the amormt of solid
waste disposed of in Michigan landﬁlls (MDEQWMD, n.d.). SWAP was intended to
make grants and loans available to public and private entities to develop and maintain
projects that diverted or assisted in diverting solid waste from Michigan sanitary landﬁlls
and incinerators. The goals of SWAP funded projects would be to beneﬁt the
environment, provide jobs, save energy, and decrease Michigan’s dependence on landﬁlls
(MDEQWMD, n.d.). During the ﬁscal years 1988 to 1990 Mackinac Island received a
ﬁnal grant expenditure totaling $1,072,000.00 for the closure of landﬁlls, composting
program and recycling program (MDEQWMD, n.d.). This funding may be the initial
foundation of the current mandated program for residents on Mackinac Island.

Non-residents on Mackinac Island reported a high frequency of recycling with 11
of the total 14 reporting either recycling or sometimes recycling. This may be due, in
part, to the fact that many of the non-residents work on the Island; therefore, they are
required to recycle and are provided access to the program. In addition, as a result of
data acquisition in mid-September, many of the respondents were mostly employees. Of
the three non-residents reporting they do not recycle on the Island, one indicated a lack of
concern for recycling. The remaining two respondents indicated a lack of places to

recycle. Despite the presence of the public drop-off site at the public boating facility,

36

more drop-off sites in additional, highly frequented areas may encourage and increase
participation. Twelve of the fourteen non-resident participants reported recycling at
home. They also described family/friends, experience, and signs/posters/ﬂiers as reasons
behind their awareness and are considered outreach for the purposes of this study. The
inﬂuence of frequency and duration were inconclusive for non-resident recycling
participation. This could be a result of survey design and the variations among non-
residents. F or example, non-residents employed on the Island have a higher frequency of
travel to the island and a longer duration of stay, yet their participation is forced due to
the places of their employment being mandated to participate. The actual administration
of the questionnaire did appear to inﬂuence awareness of recycling and act as a means of
outreach. However, this is only the case for non-residents who did not work on
Mackinac Island. On Bois Blane, this distinction was not evident.

Overall, the main difference between residents and non-residents in participation
in the community recycling program was the result of local mandates. If non-residents
were associated with the regulations, through family/friends or employment, they
participated in recycling on the island. Non-residents outside of the regulations
participated less in the recycling program.

Bois Blane Island is the opposite situation of Mackinac due to the lack of local
regulations requiring participation in the recycling program. During the ﬁscal year
1989/1990 Bois Blane received ﬁnal grant expenditure from the SWAP totaling
$139,274.00 toward the closure of the landﬁll located on Bois Blane Island.

Bois Blane also does not have a community recycling program, but does have a

small non-govemmentally supported drop-off site. However, this site was not present

37

during the collection of data, yet the non-proﬁt sponsoring the drop-off has published
information regarding recycling in its newsletters during the period of questionnaire
administration. As a result, many participants reported an awareness of recycling due to
the organization. Nine of the thirteen residents on Bois Blane reported recycling at home.
Recycling away ﬁom home, or off island, was reported by nine residents. These results
are inconclusive due to only one resident indicating that recyclable materials were taken
off island to be recycled. Where these respondents are taking their recyclable materials is
not clear. This may be a result of poor survey design or inaccurate responses by
participants. There is the possibility of more off island transfers of recyclable materials
than indicated, yet this possibility is not supported by the data. Frequency of off-island
travel is also inconclusive or residents may wait to transfer recyclable materials until they
have collected a large amount, yet this too is not evident in the data. For residents who
reported recycling on and off the island, social and experiential contexts along with the
inﬂuence of the non-proﬁt organization appear to be the most common sources of
awareness. These sources of awareness are considered a form of outreach in this study,
although not sponsored by the local government. Family and friends may inform
participants about how and where to recycle and past experiences with recycling
programs in other communities may also be forms of awareness and encouragement. Ten
of the thirteen volunteers indicated the questionnaire itself to be a source of awareness.
Of the non—residents surveyed on Bois Blane Island, ten of the thirteen indicated
recycling while at home. Nine of the thirteen non-resident respondents recycled while
away or while on the island. Frequency of travel did not inﬂuence how non-residents

recycle on Bois Blane, as results range from once a year to over twenty visits a year.

38

Duration, however, appears to be slightly more inﬂuential on non-resident participation
with the majority of respondents staying on the island longer than for a weekend. The
degree of inﬂuence is not evident, but it could be suggested that the longer a non-resident
is present within the island community, the more familiar she becomes with alternative
means of waste disposal. Non-residents staying longer than weekends may also be
affected by outreach such as family/friends, experience, signs/posters/ﬂiers (in this case
provided by the non-proﬁt organization) than visitors only staying weekends. A longer
duration of presence in a community likely increases the probability of encountering
outreach. Overall, data from non-residents on Bois Blane Island were inconclusive in
determining if participation in recycling occurred more at home or away. This may be
due to the lack of access to a community recycling program on Bois Blane Island during
data collection.

Furthermore, the meaning of recycling at home and away for both residents and
non-residents on Bois Blane becomes ambiguous due to this lack of access. If residents
of Bois Blane Island are recycling at home, yet taking recyclable materials off island, the
meaning of recycling at home and recycling away becomes obscure. The same can be
said about non-residents recycling while on the island and taking their recyclable
materials home to be dispersed. It can be said, however, that both residents and non-
residents are aware of recycling while on Bois Blane. Where and how they recycle cannot
be determined. Therefore, the differences in recycling participation between residents and
non-residents on Bois Blane Island are ambiguous and may be result of lack of access.
The differences are not so much in the actual participation but rather in where

participation ultimately occurs. The voluntary situation combined with a lack of access

39

on Bois Blane has created this unanticipated circumstance. Regardless of the data being
generally inconclusive regarding the inﬂuence of the proposed variables affecting
differences in recycling participation, both residents and non-residents on Bois Blane are
aware of recycling. The fact that awareness exists despite of access and convenience
shows potential for the establishment of a community recycling program on Bois Blane.

This also may suggest a sense of responsibility for the community.

40

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

Participating in a community recycling program whether at home or away is a
sign of awareness of the environment as well as personal waste generation and disposal.
Recycling can also considered a basic component of sustainability. Individuals who
recycle can be thought of as making an effort to ensure the quality of life for the future.
The ﬁrture and quality of life in communities such as islands is particularly important, as
history has illustrated the consequences of unmanaged growth and development and lack
of consideration for the future in areas such as the Caribbean. The Caribbean is an
example of the negative impacts incurred on the physical environment and society as a
result of unmanaged growth and concern for the futrne.

Recycling participation by both residents and non-residents in this study was
predominantly affected by access. This ﬁnding is similar to the information provided in
the report by EPA (April 2006) suggesting an increase in recycling places in public
spaces. The mandatory recycling program on Mackinac Island is the most inﬂuential
variable due to consistent access. Much like the ﬁndings in many previous studies
(Derksen and Gartrell 1993; Oskamp et al 1991, Schultz and Oskamp 1996; Fullerton and
Kinnaman 1996; Foltz and Hazlett 1999; Lansana 1992; Oom De Valle et al 2005,
Oskamp et al 1991; Reshovsky and Stone 1994) the presence of a recycling program
strongly inﬂuences recycling participation. However, it is the lack of recycling places in
public spaces that prohibits non-residents from participating, as was emphasized by the
EPA (2006). Curbside recycling pickup was shown by Reschovsky and Stone (1994) to
increase the probability of recycling more than unit pricing of garbage. This stems from

the variable access and may account for the differences in participation between

41

Mackinac and Bois Blane. On Bois Blane Island, access created a different kind of
participation variation due to the absence of a steady community recycling program. This
is not to overlook the efforts of the Bois Blane Island Stewardship Institute, the local non-
proﬁt organization, who has, since the close of this study, launched a recycling drop-off.
The inﬂuence of the non-proﬁt organization has obviously affected both residents and
non-residents. Similar ﬁndings by Foltz and Hazlett (1999) concluded outreach efforts
coupled with educational and publicity campaigns assisted by local education personnel,
environmental organizations, or other citizen groups are typical features of program
design of communities with the most successful recycling efforts.

I have come to conclude that my original expectations for the outcome of this
investigation are supported by the data but not in the manner I had anticipated. Instead of
ﬁnding a situation of concise differences in participation between residents and non-
residents, I have uncovered a deeper and more complex situation that deserves
supplementary research. I have also discovered an awareness of recycling not previously
accounted for in Northern Michigan. The two islands are within Mackinac County with
Cheboygan County and Emmett County as the next closest. Aside from the anomaly of
Mackinac Island, Mackinac County does not offer or mandate recycling. The same is true
for Cheboygan County, which does not offer recycling to its community members and is
geographically closer to Bois Blane than Mackinac County and connected by ferry
service. Emmet County, however, is the nearest governmentally supported jurisdiction
that offers an extensive recycling program. The beneﬁt of this program is evident in the

fact the non-proﬁt organization on Bois Blane travels 90 nrinutes to transfer recyclable

42

materials there. Perhaps an additional implication of this research is to help bring up to
date the Counties surrounding these unique islands.

Access is the most inﬂuential variable among these two communities. The
opportunity to recycle is often provided by the local government of a community, as seen
on Mackinac Island. Local units of government often receive funding from the State to
develop and streamline recycling programs. In turn, the State may receive portions of
these funds from the Federal level. In the case of Mackinac Island, receiving over a
million dollars in ﬁmding may have been the initial stimulation and foundation for the
current recycling mandates. Concurrently, the differences in SWAP funding between
Bois Blane Island and Mackinac Island may be the source of differences in recycling
participation between residents and non-residents. Future studies may ﬁnd it necessary to
investigate funding history and success on both islands.

This is similar to what Blaike (1998) is portraying with the ‘Chain of
Explanation.’ The ﬁnite communities of Bois Blanc and Mackinac Islands are the sites
of environmental change. Land is being used, or has been used, for the storage of waste
generated and disposed of by humans. The recognition of these environmental changes is
evident in the awareness of recycling as an alternative to landﬁlling solid waste.
Residents and non-residents are then faced with the decision of whether to participate in
the recycling program. In communities such as Mackinac the decision is inﬂuenced by
econonrics, as it is more expensive not to recycle than it is to recycle due to local
mandates. On Mackinac, the opportunity to recycle is created by the local units of
government, which received funding from the State and possibly Federal levels. As a

result, environmental impacts from the generation and disposal of waste are mediated by

43

political inﬂuences rather than the immediate decisions of individuals within the
community. A similar situation may be present on Bois Blane even though recycling is
voluntary and sponsored by a non-proﬁt organization. Here, the deﬁcit of political
inﬂuence is having a negative effect on the immediate environment.

The idea that broader systems are inﬂuencing these communities is associated
with the concepts of political ecology. According to the general idea of political ecology,
environmental change and ecological conditions at the local level are the product of
political processes at various scales. By holding local and proximate forces responsible,
such as the investigation of ﬁequency of visit and duration, the complexity of political
inﬂuence may be excluded. Therefore, the environmental change, both positive and
negative, experienced in these communities is a result of human-environment interaction
at various scales.

In conclusion, a better understanding of the complexity of the human-
environment interaction occurring within these communities requires an investigation
into the political inﬂuences. The study of geography provides the tools and theoretical
foundations to address the continuum of human-environment interactions. This may yield
further insights into differences in recycling participation between residents and non-
residents. Where and why people are generating and disposing of waste is the
ﬁrndamental issue causing environmental change. Likewise, it may be the inﬂuence of
political power from the Federal level down to the local, as well as from the local to the
federal. Funding and support from the top down may result in program development and
policies that may increase participation of both residents and non-residents. Local efforts,

like those of the Bois Blane Island Stewardship Institute, also have impact on the

community by raising awareness and offering alternatives to what the local government
provides. Raising awareness within the community may then lead to public pressure on
the local unit of government which may in turn look to the state for funding opportunities
and support to develop programs and policies. Regardless of which approach is taken,
recycling opportunities are needed for residents and especially non-residents.

Finally, the opportunity to conduct this research has positively expanded the
general knowledge of recycling participation at home and away. This knowledge, while
only the tip of the iceberg, is extremely important as society continues to generate and
dispose of waste. Considering the popularity and necessity of travel, the information
gained here can only be helpful to both increasing the awareness of our impacts on the
Earth and to future studies that may help to evolve our understanding of how we deal
with waste. The generation and disposal of waste is transforming the environment and
everyday landscapes. Recycling is one of society’s responses to these changes. Society
will continue to impact the environment and as a result be affected by the
transformations. Understanding how we deal with waste will be a huge step in the
revolution of human consciousness and the quality of life for the future.

Future Studies

Studies stemming from, or related to, this investigation should uphold the
importance of survey design as priority. Survey design is an aspect of this study that has
given way to new insights on the most efﬁcacious method of conducting research of this
character. The design is crucial to the usefulness of the data, as I had many responses
that were the products of misinterpretation. The length of the survey is also important, as

volunteers are leery of potentially time-consuming responses. On top of these ﬁndings,

45

the very nature of survey/questionnaire responses should be considered when asking
volunteers about a behavior such as recycling. There is a cloud of social endorsement
surrounding the idea of recycling that may shade results. No one wants to admit they do
not partake in such a widely accepted and beneﬁcial activity like recycling. As a result,
the honesty assumed to be present in the questionnaire responses must also be considered.
Future research may ﬁnd actual observations of residents and non-residents recycling or
not recycling more valuable to data generation. At the very least, recycling participation
observation should be supplemented with the questionnaire.

Another aspect of the survey instrument that could be improved for future studies
is the delineation of residents from non-residents. This was particularly a concern on Bois
Blane Island. Respondents were allowed to determine whether they were residents or
non-residents. This may have resulted in inaccurate representation of resident responses
due to the subjective nature of declaring residency. Additional studies may ﬁnd a
comparison of registered voters to non-voters more beneﬁcial to data than residents vs.
non-residents.

Any future research related to differences in recycling participation on Bois Blane
Island should unquestionably generate more conclusive data, as residents and non-
residents will have a place to recycle on the island without having to transfer materials
off island themselves. An in depth examination of the policy behind current waste
management programs and the history behind these policies may also yield useful results.

Future studies should also incorporate a broader set of variables and larger sample
size. Other inﬂuential variables aside from frequency, duration, access, and outreach

may also affect participation on these islands. Additional variables may include family

46

history on the island, reasons behind coming to the islands, why individuals are recycling
on these islands, environmental values, and what actions could be taken to encourage
participation. Furthermore, links to community vision and planning could be made to
expand this study. Many suggestions for planning initiatives can be established from the
ﬁndings of this study. The need for recycling places in more obvious public spaces is
apparent on Mackinac Island. On Bois Blane, the need for a program has been identiﬁed
and the efforts and awareness of the community documented. The effort and awareness
put forth by both residents and non-residents may be useful in planning efforts, building
community vision, and sustainability on Bois Blane.

Along with planning implications, an expansion of the study area may also be
beneﬁcial to generating more convincing results. Including additional islands with
similar characteristics and recycling program situations may advance this research.
Adding additional islands with mandatory recycling could broaden and diversify
ﬁndings. The same could be true for including additional islands with voluntary
programs. Mackinac and Bois Blane Islands have provided useful preliminary
information about the differences in participation of recycling programs between
residents and non-residents. The differences in development may be affecting the
outcomes due to Mackinac being heavily populated and therefore possessing the

accommodating infrastructure and ability to mandate and provide a recycling program.

47

APPENDICES

48

APPENDIX A

Resident Questionnaire

1. Are you a resident of (circle one) Mackinac, Bois Blane Island?
Yes, No, other
If yes, how long?

 

2. Do you own property on the Island?
Yes, No, other
If yes, how long?

 

 

3. How often do you leave the Island?
per week, per month, per year

4. Do you recycle? (if No skip to question 4e)
Yes, no, sometimes, other

 

4a. If yes, why?

 

4b. If yes, what do you recycle? (check all that apply)
__ paper/ newspaper
__ aluminum
..___ glass
_ plastic
__ Styrofoam
__ batteries
__ metal
__ compost
__ other (please describe

4c. If yes, do you recycle when not on the Island?
Yes, No, sometimes, other

 

4d. If yes, how did you become aware of recycling on the Island?
family/friend
experience
mail/email
sign, ﬂier, poster
other (please describe

 

4e. If no, why?

 

49

4f. If no, how is garbage disposed of? (check all that apply)
_thrown in garbage bag/can
__ trash compactor
__ burn
__ bury
__ garbage disposal
__ other (please describe )

4g. If no, do you recycle off Island?
Yes, No, sometimes, other

 

If yes, where?

 

4h. If no, what would help you recycle more frequently and more material? (check all
that apply)

_ curbside pickup

_ clearly marked drop-off bins

__ incentives

__ more information

__ a community recycling program

_ other (please describe )

5. Has this survey increased your awareness of how you dispose of your garbage/waste
at home and away?
Yes, No, somewhat, other

 

50

APPENDIX B

Non-resident Questionnaire

1. Are you a resident of (circle one) Mackinac, Bois Blane Island?
Yes, No, other

2. Do you own property on the Island?
Yes, No, other
If yes, how long?

 

 

3. How frequently do you visit the Island?
per week, per month, per year, other

 

4. On average, how long do you stay on the Island?
weekends

3-7 days

1-3 weeks

1-3 months

+ 3 months

other

 

5. Do you recycle at home?
Yes, No, Sometimes, Other

6. Do you recycle while on the Island?
Yes, No, sometimes, other

7. If you DO recycle (circle one) at home, on Island, both, why?

 

7a. How did you become aware of recycling on the Island? (check all that apply)
family/friend
experience
mail/email
sign, ﬂier, poster
other (please describe )

7b. What do you recycle on the Island? (check all that apply)
paper/newspaper
aluminum
glass
plastic
Styrofoam
batteries

51

metal

compost
other (please describe

8. If you DO NOT, recycle (circle one) at home, on Island, both, why?

 

8a. If you DO NOT recycle on the Island, how is garbage disposed of?
toss in garbage bag/can
trash compactor
bum
._ _..__ bury
garbage disposal
other (please describe )

8b. If you do not recycle, what would help you to participate in a local recycling
program (check all that apply)

curbside pickup

clearly marked drop off bins
incentives [such as?]
more information
a community recycling program
other (please describe )
9. Has this survey increased yorn' awareness of how you dispose of your

garbage/waste at home and away?
Yes, No, somewhat, other

 

52

REFERENCES

53

REFERENCES

Ackerman, F. 1997. Why Do We Recycle? Markets, Values, and Public Policy.
Washington DC, Covel, CA, Island Press.

Berger, LE. 1997. Demographics of Recycling. Environment and Behavior. Vol. 29, (#4):
5 15-53 1 .

Blaikie, P., and Brookﬁeld, H., 1987, Deﬁning and Debating the Problem In Land
Degradation and Society. Blaikie, P., Brookﬁeld, H., eds. London: Methuen 1-27

Blaikie, P. 1998. Political Ecology in the 1990s: An Evolving View of Nature and
Society. CASID Distinguished Speaker Series No.13. Michigan State University: East
Lansing.

Bois Blane Island Site; An Interactive Site for Islanders and Island Lovers, 2001,
accessed 10/30/2006, www.bois-blane.com.

Carlson, Ann. 2001. Recycling Norms. California Law Review, Vol. 89, (#5): 1231-
1300.

Consultwebs, Truck Accident Lawyers, created 1999, accessed 10/30/2006,
www.consultwebs.com

Cummings, LE. 1997. Waste Minimization Supporting Urban Tourism Sustainability: A
Mega-Resort Case Study. Journal of Sustainable Tourisnr, Vol. 5, (#2): 93-107.

De Young, R. 1990. Recycling as Appropriate Behavior: A Review of Survey Data ﬁom
Selected Recycling Education Programs in Michigan. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling. Vol.3, (#4): 253-266.

Derksen, L. and Gartrell, J. 1993. The Social Context of Recycling. American
Sociological Review. Vol. 58: 434-442.

Devall, William. 1988. Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology. Salt
Lake City, UT. Peregrine Smith Books.

EPA, 1999. Cutting the Waste Stream in Half. EPA-530-R-99-013.

EPA, 2006. Recycling on the Go: Recycling Places in Public Spaces. EPA530-F-06-
010.

Fialka, J. 2002. High Cost of Compliance Prompts Some Cities to Dump Parts of Plans,
Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2002.

54

Fullerton, D. and Kinnaman, TC. 1996. Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the
Bag. The American Economic Review. Vol. 86, (#4): 971-984.

Foltz, D. and Hazlett, J. 1999. Public Participation and Recycling Performance:
Explaining Program Success. Public Administration Review. Vol. 51, (#6): 526-532.

Goldenhar, L.M., Connell, CM. 1993. Eﬂects of Educational Feedback Interventions on
Recycling Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors. Journal of Environmental
Systems. Vol. 21, (#4): 321-333.

Holecek, Donald. 2005. CARRS - Tourism Resource Center, Michigan State University,
Power Point Presentation, Michigan Tourism: A $16 Billion Business Without a Business
Plan.

Howrrstine, E. 1993. Market Segmentation for Recycling. Environment and Behavior.
Vol. 25, (#1).

Hunts’ Guide to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, Region 15 Mackinac Island, www.bunts-
upguide.com, created 1997, last accessed 10/30/06

Lansana, EM. 1992. Distinguishing Potential Recyclers ﬁom Nonrecyclers: A Basis for
Developing Recycling Strategies. J oumal of Environmental Education. Vol. 23, (#2):
1 6-23.

Lee, J. and Ralston, L. No Date (n.d.).The Inﬂuence of Signage and Proximity of
Recycling Bins on the Volume of Recycling Materials Generated at a Hotel.

Leiss, William. 1976. The Limits to Satisfaction: An Essay on the Problem of Needs and
Commodities. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Mackinac County Community Center, General County Information,
www.maekinaccounty.net, updated 7/22/2005, accessed 10/28/2006.

MapQuest; Maps, Directions and More, Maps, www.mapquest.com, updated 2006,1ast
accessed 1/29/2006.

Masser, Chris. 1999. Vision and Leadership in Sustainable Development. Boca Raton,
Florida: Lewis Publishers.

Margai, FL. 1997. Analyzing Changes in Waste Reduction Behavior in Low Income
Urban Community Following Outreach. Environment and Behavior. Vol. 29 (#6):

MRC, Michigan Recycling Coalition. 2001 . Michigan Recycling Measurement Project:
Annual Collection and Diversion of Municipal Solid Waste.

55

MDEQWMD, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Waste and Hazardous
Materials Division. 2003. Response to Questions Raised at the June 16, 2003 Beverage
Container and Recycling Task Force Meeting.

MDEQWMD, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Waste and Hazardous
Materials Division, No Date (n.d.) Solid Waste Alternative Program (SWAP) Report,
Executive Summary.

Oom Do Valle, P., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., and Menezes, J. 2005. Combining Behavioral
Theories to Predict Recycling Involvement. Environment and Behavior. Vol. 37, (#3):
364-396.

Oskamp, S., Harrington, M., Edwards, T., Sherwood, D., Okuda, S., Swanson, D. 1991.
Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior, Environment and Behavior. Vol. 23,
(#4): 494-520.

Reschovsky, James D. and Stone, Sarah E. 1994. Market Incentives to Encourage
Household Waste Recycling: Paying for What You Throw Away. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management. Vol. 13, (#1): 103-11.

Rathje and Murphy. 2001. Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. Tuscon, Arizona:
The University of Arizona Press.

Robbins, Paul. 2004. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. London: Blackwell.

Roseland, M., Connelly, S., Hendrickson, D., Lindberg, C., and Lithgow, M. 2005.
Toward Sustainable Communities, Resources for Citizens and Their Governments.
Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Vigmostad, Karen. 1999. State of the Great Lakes Islands Report. U.S.-Canada Great
Lakes Islands Project. Department of Resource Development. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Sauer, Carl. 1925. The Morphology of Landscape. University of California Publications
in Geography 2: 19-54

Schultz, G. 2002. Examining the Eﬁ’ects of Recycling Outreach on Recycling Behavior in
Residence Halls at the University of California Berkley.

Schultz, P.W. and Oskamp, S. 1996. Eﬂort as a Moderator of the Attitude-Behavior

Relationship: General Environmental Concern and Recycling. Social Psychology
Quarterly. Vol. 59, (#4): 375-383.

56

   

uttmutggtwmjyntittyu