2 ‘Waste separation: from non-complier to environmental fan?’
The results of the use of waste coaches at the municipality of Beuningen
Author: Lotte Verhulst
Student Number: 4423380
Concerns: Master thesis of Human Geography
Supporting institution: Radboud University
Program: Human Geography
Specialisation: Urban and Cultural Geography
Supervisor: Dr. R.G. van Melik
Second reader: Roos Pijpers Internship Company: Lentekracht
Internship supervisors: Bram Lamberts & Koen Vrielink
Date: January 10, 2020
3
Preface
With pleasure, I hereby present my master’s thesis on the behaviour of citizens on the practice of waste separation in the municipality of Beuningen. The process of writing and completing my thesis is the last step to complete the Master of Urban and Cultural Geography at the Radboud University in Nijmegen. Writing my master’s thesis required all the knowledge gained over the past study years. In these years I have learned a lot about doing scientific research and academic writing, but also gaining knowledge in the field of geography, spatial planning and environmental issues, both theoretically and in practice.
I would like to thank a few people who have contributed to this research. First, I want to thank my internship company Lentekracht and my supervisor Bram Lamberts and Koen Vrielink for giving me the opportunity and trust to prove myself as an intern at Lentekracht and as a waste coach in the municipality of Beuningen. During this period, I gained a lot of work experience; I was
motivated to think along with projects and improve my way of thinking and working. I want to thank Bram for the valuable feedback on my work for half a year. Furthermore, I want to thank Rianne van Melik for helping to give shape to my thesis and guiding me through different theories and scientific views and the critical eye on my writing and research choices. This resulted in an improvement of my thesis and helping me finishing this product. I also want to thank the municipality of Beuningen, to give the opportunity to work as a waste coach. This made it possible to collect the data for this research. The monthly meetings, in collaboration with Dar and Lentekracht, were valuable for both the project and my research. This research wouldn’t be possible without the contributions of the interview respondents. My appreciation goes out to the respondents who made time and effort for an interview and provide me with the much-needed data. Finally, I want to thank my family and friends for offering a listening ear and a critical eye during the writing process of this master’s thesis. I hope you enjoy reading my thesis!
Lotte Verhulst
4
Summary
Dealing with waste is one of the biggest global issues of our time. Due to rising prosperity and growing consumption, the amount of waste is getting bigger and bigger. In 2008, the Netherlands produced a total of 63 million tonnes of waste. 84 per cent of this waste is reused, 13 per cent is incinerated and 3 per cent is disposed or discharged. Non-organic and non-reusable waste is a relatively new phenomenon; about hundred years ago, almost all products that were used daily, were made of natural materials that could be reused.
The consensus exists in the municipal waste world that the future lies in a circular economy. Acceleration is needed for large-scale reuse, closing cycles and the development of a well-functioning circular raw materials market. On a more regional scale, Nijmegen and the surrounding region are leading with waste separation. Inhabitants of this region separate their waste for 75 per cent and the residual waste stays under a hundred kilos per person per year. If waste is collected separately, it can be recycled more efficiently. One of the approaches to stimulate citizens to separate waste correctly is the use of the waste coach: a person who helps citizens with the practice of waste separation. The municipality of Beuningen employed a waste coach since 2017. However, there are still citizens that do not dispose their separated waste correctly, called non-compliers.
To research the promotions and the pitfalls with which citizens struggle, the following research question is set up: What are the factors that influence the behaviour of non-compliers on the practice of waste separation in the municipality of Beuningen?
Qualitative methods are used to carry out the research and obtain the necessary data. First of all, empirical data on the waste collection method and the waste coach in the municipality of Beuningen are obtained with the help of document analysis. This resulted in more information about the waste management of the municipality and the use of the waste coach. Furthermore, the researcher made observations in order to track down citizens that do not separate their waste correctly. After these observations, five non-compliers are interviewed in order to get to know more about their practice of waste separation.
Eventually, the factors that influence the practice of waste separation of citizens are assigned to the three elements of the social practice theory; meaning, competence and material. The phase of life, level of education, family composition, privacy, norms and values, the degree of reflection on own behaviour, the amount of time and normative behaviour of a citizen influence a citizen’s meaning on the practice of waste separation. Also knowledge, information provision about waste separation, the physical capability of a citizen, communication about changes of the waste
management and the waste coach influence a citizen’s competence to execute the practice of waste separation. At last, the element material exists of the components, space, containers and garbage bags, underground containers for the disposal of residual waste, the cleanliness of the underground container depots, the size and design of these containers, the distance to the depots, means of transportation, the costs to dispose residual waste and the waste card. These components are necessary to execute the practice of waste separation. All the elements of the social practice theory are considered as equally important. However, the intentions and the actual practice of waste separation sometimes differ from each other. A citizen that claims to be pro-environmental, can still make mistakes during the practice of waste separation. Therefore, errors are caused by
5 optimize the practice of waste separation, the material that is necessary for waste separation need to work perfectly and citizens must have the right knowledge. To improve the knowledge about waste separation, the waste coach is deployed to provide information and to monitor the quality of the separated waste.
To motivate citizens that do not separate their waste properly, an extrinsic motivation in the form of a waste coach is used. The waste coach is deployed to reduce the amount of litter in the public area, controlling the underground container depots for waste nuisance and to get an insight into the practice of waste separation of the citizens of the municipality of Beuningen. Overall, the influence of the waste coach was quite effective on the practice of waste separation of citizens and improving the quality of separated waste. The waste coach was also seen as a street-level bureaucrat between the citizen and the municipality of Beuningen. However, it depends on what point of view is being looked at to the waste coach. According to the municipality of Beuningen, the waste coach is a person who helps citizens with improving their practice of waste separation and answering waste related questions. However, for some citizens, the waste coach is a nit-picker that snoops into their waste and violates their privacy. Despite the negative reactions, citizens also think the waste coach is a useful person that provides them information and a point of contact for questions and complaints. Key words: Beuningen, waste separation, practice of waste separation, non-compliers, social practice theory, waste coach
6
Index
Preface ... 3
Summary ... 4
1. Introduction ... 8
1.2. Research objective and research question ... 9
1.3. Relevance ... 9
1.3.1. Scientific relevance ... 9
1.3.2. Societal relevance ... 10
1.4. Methods ... 11
1.5. Bookmark ... 12
2. Theoretical debate on waste separation... 13
2.1. Circular economy ... 13
2.2. Social practice theory ... 14
2.3. Meaning ... 15
2.4. Competence ... 17
2.4.1. Extrinsic motivation ... 18
2.4.2. The waste coach ... 18
2.4.3. Door-stepping ... 19
2.5. Material ... 20
2.5.1. Reversed waste collection ... 20
2.5.2. Unit-based pricing systems ... 21
2.5.3. Acquired material ... 23 2.6. Conceptual model ... 24 3. Methodology ... 26 3.1. Case study ... 26 3.2. Research area ... 26 3.3. Data collection ... 28 3.3.1. Document analysis ... 28 3.3.2. Autoethnography ... 29 3.3.3. Making observations ... 30 3.3.4. Doing interviews ... 31 3.3.5. Media analysis ... 32 3.4. Data analysis ... 33 3.5. Data overview ... 33
4. The practice of waste separation among citizens in Beuningen ... 35
7
4.2. The role of the waste coach ... 36
4.2.1. The experiences of a waste coach ... 37
4.2.2. The practice of being a waste coach ... 38
4.2.3. The perception of the waste coach by the citizens ... 40
4.3. The influence of the media ... 42
4.3.1. Privacy law ... 43
4.4. The daily practice of waste separation of the respondents ... 44
4.4.1. Daan: young parent ... 44
4.4.2. Gijs and Fien: a retired couple ... 45
4.4.3. Tim: just moved to the municipality of Beuningen, young parent... 46
4.4.4. Anne: mother of three children ... 47
4.5. Similarities and differences ... 48
4.5.1. Meaning ... 48
4.5.2. Competence ... 50
4.5.3. Material ... 51
5. Conclusions and recommendations ... 54
5.1. The importance of waste separation ... 54
5.2. The waste coach ... 54
5.2.1. The role of the waste coach ... 54
5.2.2. The perception of citizens of the waste coach ... 56
5.3. The social practice theory ... 57
5.3.1. Meaning ... 58 5.3.2. Competence ... 59 5.3.3. Material ... 60 5.4. Discussion ... 61 5.4.1. Policy recommendations ... 63 References ... 66
Appendix I – notes plastic+ waste control rounds ... 73
Appendix II – interview guide ... 88
Appendix III – letter of the waste coach ... 91
Appendix IIII – conversations during control rounds of plastic+ waste, underground container depots and in response to complaints ... 93
8
1. Introduction
Dealing with waste is one of the biggest global issues of our time. The current development of the society places great pressure on the environment and leads to a change of the climate, depletion of natural resources, pollution and the loss of biodiversity (Roorda, 2005; p.26-29). Due to rising prosperity and growing consumption, the amount of waste that is produced is getting bigger and bigger (Carabain, Spitz & Keulemans, 2012). With the arrival of the consumer society, the ‘waste society’ also rose. According to data of Agentschap NL (2011), the Netherlands produced a total of 63 million tonnes of waste in 2008. 84 per cent of this waste is reused, 13 per cent is incinerated and 3 per cent is disposed or discharged.
Non-organic and non-reusable waste is a relatively new phenomenon (Strasser, 1999). About a hundred years ago, almost all products that were used daily, were made of natural materials that could be perished or materials that could be reused, like glass or metal.
For decades, economic growth has been accompanied by an increase in waste, but according to the OECD report (2012), this trend appears to be broken in prosperous countries. Between 2000 and 2009, the amount of municipal waste – this is the waste of households, but also of small shops and public institutions – decreased by 3,5 per cent. Possible explanations for the decreasing amount of waste are the increasing digitalization and the relocation of production processes abroad
(Carabain et al., 2012).
The Netherlands is one of the forerunners in the field of recycling. 56 per cent of all the waste gets separated. This number of waste separation is slightly higher than the average of other European countries. On average, a Dutch person has 180 kilos of residual waste, which means fifty waste bags (Milieu Centraal, 2019). In this residual waste, there is still waste than can be recycled.
According to the report of Van Raak, Loorback, Verhagen, Verhoeven, Teernstra and Taanman (2014), there is a consensus in the municipal waste world that the future lies in closed material cycles, called a circular economy. In the next ten years, acceleration will be needed for large-scale reuse, closing cycles and the development of a well-functioning circular raw materials market. On a more regional scale, Nijmegen and the surrounding region are leading with waste separation. Yearly, inhabitants of Nijmegen, Berg en Dal, Beuningen, Druten, Heumen and Wijchen separate their waste for 75 per cent. The residual waste stays under a hundred kilos per person per year (CBS, 2019).
To reuse and recycle waste, waste separation can provide an opportunity to reuse more waste. To make sure waste is collected in a certain way that it can be recycled efficiently, there are several ways possible. In this research, one of these approaches to stimulate citizens to separate their waste correctly is discussed. This approach is called a waste coach: this coach helps people to separate their waste properly and can answer questions of citizens. In the municipality of Beuningen, the waste coach is employed since 2017. In the same year, the municipality entered a new waste collection system, called the reversed waste collection. The plastic, organic and paper and cardboard waste flows are separated by the citizens in three containers, residual waste must be brought to underground containers that are placed by the municipality. However, the risk exists that waste is not thrown in the right container.
In this research, the focus is on the waste coach and its influence on the non-compliers in the municipality of Beuningen.
9
1.2.
Research objective and research question
To cope with waste issues, there are several ways to influence citizens to separate and reduce waste and change this to reusable material. One of these ways is to use a waste coach. Over the past few years, multiple municipalities in the Netherlands decided to employ a waste coach. A waste coach should decrease the distance between the citizen and the policymaker through personal
communication (Schravendeel, 2017). This is one of the ways to influence people’s behaviour to reduce the amount of residual waste. In this research, the meaning of the role of the waste coach is determined and the influence of this waste coach on the non-compliers of Beuningen.
The following main question is set up:
“What are the factors that influence the behaviour of non-compliers on the practice of waste separation in the municipality of Beuningen?”
The following sub-questions will help to give an answer to the main question:
1. What are the motivations that non-compliers do not dispose of residual waste/separate their waste?
2. What is the role of a waste coach?
3. How is the waste coach perceived by the citizens of the municipality of Beuningen?
The objective of this research is to gain theoretical insights who are the non-compliers It is important to look at how non-compliers separate their waste and what the bottlenecks are, in order to improve the quality of the separated waste flows. It is also desirable to get users of waste management to dispose of their household waste in the right way. In addition, in this research is the concept of the waste coach central. Therefore, the research is also focused on gaining theoretical insights into the activities of a waste coach and how a waste coach can instigate behavioural change. The results of this research will be new theoretical insights about waste separation behaviour, the waste coach and recommendations for further research.
1.3.
Relevance
In this chapter, the scientific and societal relevance of this research is discussed briefly in this chapter, whereby scientific and societal problems are elaborated and discussed.
1.3.1. Scientific relevance
Looking at the literature, a variety of literature is found on the concepts in this research. The first concept that is important for this research is the method of waste collection. There is a consensus in the waste world that the future is focused on closed material cycles (Van Raak et al., 2014). To reach closed material cycles, there are several ways. Nijskens (2012) indicates that waste separation causes more reusing of waste. If waste is more recycled, this can lead to a more circular economy. One of the methods to separate waste is unit-based pricing systems. Four examples of these systems are volume-, frequency-, bag- and weight-based pricing systems (Dijkgraaf & Gradus, 2004). In this research, the focus is on reversed waste collection. This collection system is an example of a
10 frequency- and a volume-based pricing system, that uses fees to stimulate households to recycle more and minimize their waste (Dahlén & Lagerkvist, 2007). Several municipalities in the Netherlands implemented the reversed waste collection method. However, because of the newness of this system, there is not much literature about the effect of this collection method and the effect of the collection fee as a policy instrument. Therefore, the waste flow data, in general, is insufficient and inadequate for the accurate evaluation of waste collection systems and comparisons between municipalities. Due to the lack of this knowledge, the aim of this research is to contribute to the academic literature.
The second concept that is discussed in this research, is the waste coach. Waste coaches are deployed in 2017 to contribute to a smooth implementation of the reversed waste collection system (Van Oers, 2018). Focussing on the waste coach is a valuable research perspective, because of the newness of the profession. The newness is partly responsible for the lack of literature. There is no general framework for the deployment of a waste coach and working methods, despite several municipalities in the Netherlands already deployed a waste coach. This research shows the activities of a waste coach and which methods can be used by the waste coach. To research what the activities of the waste coach are and how the waste coach is perceived by citizens, the researcher used the autoethnography method. This method enables the researcher to experience the determination process in person, instead of studying this concept from the sideline. It gives the researcher the opportunity to do participating research.
The third concept is the behaviour of citizens on waste separation. Former studies about waste management focus on the behaviour of citizens in general, often show an image of ‘the average citizen’. Through choices and actions, a way of doing arises that are considered as ‘normal’ (Van Raak et al., 2014). To get an insight into the practice of waste separation behaviour, the social practice theory of Shove et al. (2012) is used. In this way, there is looked at which elements are needed to separate waste and which elements hinder waste separation. In contrast to existing literature, this research focusses on the ‘non-average citizen’: called non-complier. This group of citizens do not dispose of their waste in the right way. It is unknown who this target audience is, there is little known about their demography and motivations. According to the report of Van Oers (2018), multiple municipalities in the Netherlands that have implemented the reversed waste
collection system, experience non-compliers. However, all these municipalities do not know who this target audience is. There are at most suspicions why there are non-compliers: some non-compliers throw their residual waste in the plastic+ (plastic packaging, cans and drink cartons), the organic waste and the paper container. There might also be people who throw their waste in public containers or dispose of their waste next to the underground containers. Conducting this research leads to more insights into the demography and motivations of this specific target audience and which elements ensure that waste separation is difficult.
1.3.2. Societal relevance
Dealing with waste issues is a global problem. In many developed economies, the responsibilities for waste management are allocated by certain agencies that clean up the environment (Ogbonna, Ekweozor & Igwe, 2002). However, with the rise of circular economy programs, clean streets are not enough anymore. Waste prevention, separation and recycling, resulting in a reduction of residual waste to a minimum is the new goal. Citizens of villages and cities can help to reach this goal. The results of this research may contribute to the process of moving to a more circular economy. Successful implementation of a reversed waste collection policy leads to a decrease in residual
11 waste, which contributes to the goals that are set by the EU. Accomplishing these goals have positive effects on the environment. However, articles in Dutch newspapers are not positive about the reversed waste collection (Van de Wiel, 2018). The new collection system in Hengelo causes discussions and even threats. The citizens think that it is not effective; it forces citizens to drag with their garbage and makes it more expensive for many people. This research indicates the reasons why particular municipalities choose reversed waste collection anyway.
The study of Hansmann & Steimer (2015) shows that face-to-face conversations with persons from the target audience represent a promising way to counteract littering. This is one of the
activities that a waste coach executes. Several municipalities in the Netherlands implemented the use of the waste coach. After the implementation, there is still a large group that does not take their residual waste to the assigned underground containers. This research can offer outcomes if there are reasons that match between the non-compliers. If there are matching reasons, the waste coach can respond to this and can improve his work and his approach. This research may reveal different approaches from the waste coach to activate different target audiences to separate waste more consciously.
In this research, the waste coach and the non-compliers are central. The goal is to get more information about the demography and the motivations to separate waste of non-compliers. If a behavioural change is reached, this can have a positive effect on the way of waste separation. If this happens more carefully, waste can be recycled more. There is also little known about the opinion of citizens on the waste coach. Is the presence of this person considered as positive and does he provide a mutual sense of responsibility to keep the living environment clean and liveable? Or have people a negative opinion about the waste coach? This research provides more information about the non-compliers and their opinion about the waste coach.
When the data that is important for this research is collected, recommendations can be made. Stakeholders that are involved with this research, can use the outcomes. In this research, the municipality of Beuningen, Dar and Lentekracht can use the data and conclusions to improve, for example, the use of a waste coach. Dar is a regional waste collector in the municipality in Beuningen. The company keeps the environment of Beuningen and the surrounding areas clean. Dar helps municipalities to collect waste separately as much as possible, so that waste can be reused (www.dar.nl).
Also, other stakeholders can benefit from this research. For example, other municipalities in the Netherlands who want to employ a waste coach, to implement reversed waste collection, or to reduce the number of non-compliers. Additionally, waste collection companies like Dar can expand their knowledge of the discussed concepts and potentially adjust or improve their policy.
1.4.
Methods
In this research, several methods are used to answer the main question. The main question is divided into three sub-questions, that are explained with several methods. To determine who the non-compliers are, the researcher enters the role of the waste coach to make observations. Through these observations, the researcher determines where the target audience live and in this way, make an appointment for an interview.
In order to find out what the motivations are of the non-compliers to not separate their waste in the right way, interviews are taken. These interviews give more insights into the
respondents’ practices of waste separation and which factors are considered as circumstances that promote or hinder waste separation.
12 Through the work as a waste coach, the researcher experiences what is expected of this person and how the waste coach is perceived by the citizens of the municipality of Beuningen. Using autoethnography, experiences of the work as a waste coach are noted by the researcher. Also in the interviews is asked about the respondents’ opinion about the waste coach.
Finally, a media analysis of the developments of the waste coach project is made. The used methods in this research are further explained in chapter three.
1.5.
Bookmark
Chapter two sets forward the theoretical framework that explains the concepts of waste separation, the waste coach and citizens’ behaviour and the link between these concepts and the social practice theory. Chapter three explains the used methods to answer the research question(s) and why there is chosen for the research area of Beuningen. Chapter four displays the results of the study. Chapter five includes the conclusion and a discussion for further research. Finally, a list of references is included.
13
2. Theoretical debate on waste separation
In this research, the social practice theory is linked to the concepts of waste separation, the
behaviour and motives of citizens to separate waste and the use of the waste coach. In this chapter, the theoretical base of these concepts is elaborated in an inductive way.
2.1. Circular economy
Nowadays, there is a consensus in the municipal waste world that the future is focused on closed material cycles. The ambition is that acceleration is needed towards large-scale reuse, the closing of cycles and the development of a well-functioning circular raw materials market (Van Raak, Loorbach, Verhagen, Verhoeven, Teernstra & Taanman, 2014). The phenomenon closed material cycle is also known as a circular economy.
The concept of the circular economy is often used nowadays but has been gaining
momentum since the late 1970s. However, even though this phenomenon has been around for some time, there are several definitions. The most renowned definition has been framed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, describing the circular economy as an industrial economy that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design (2013, p. 14). Also, Geng & Doberstein (2008, p. 231)
describe the circular economy as the realization of a closed-loop material flow in the whole economic system. With the eye on continuing rising global consumption and depleting geological raw material reserves, the reuse of materials and recycling is desirable (Cramer, 2015). An addition is given by SER – the Dutch Social and Economic Council (2016). This institution sees a circular economy as an economy that produces efficiently within the ecological constraints and uses products, materials and resources in a responsible way.
Because of a lack of a clear vision about how a circular economy should look like, there is little attention to the practice; how can a circular economy be in? This question is more economic and policy-based than technical. There is much knowledge to reuse most products and materials, but the actual application usually stands or falls with economic and organizational feasibility (Cramer, 2015). It takes new forms of collaboration and other financial arrangements. It will lead to the application of new business models that stimulate product use more than the possession of products. The image of a completely circular economy is often a wish-picture. In an ideal world, residual waste flows cannot be eliminated, because for some waste there is not a recycling process, or this is financially feasible. By burning non-recyclable waste flows as much as possible, a useful contribution is still made in the form of energy generation; heat (SER, 2016).
To take a step towards the realization of a circular economy, waste separation to stimulate recycling and reusing waste is one of the components. The concept of waste separation is separating waste at the source as much as possible, keep it separated and deliver it separated. Post-sorting or sorting by the collector or processor is not covered here. The goal of waste separation is to reach the recycling of products, material reuse or the application of waste as fuel. By separating waste at the source, it becomes easier for waste processors to reuse waste, whereby homogeneous waste flows exist. The residual materials from waste become new raw materials and get a new value, whereby the government can save somewhat on the processing of waste and receive an amount for the residual materials that arise on the other hand. Another advantage is that less waste gets burned and the CO2 emissions decrease. Therefore, there is a financial advantage and waste separation has a positive influence on sustainability goals (Nijskens, 2012).
14
2.2.
Social practice theory
In this research, an attempt has been made to research how citizens separate their waste and why they do it in this way. For this behaviour, the social practice theory is used. Methods to understand relations between agency and structure constantly change and evolve. The idea that new social arrangements result from an accumulation of millions of individual decisions about how best to act is influential in everyday discourse, in contemporary policymaking and in certain areas of social science. This idea, which has multiple assumptions about human agency and choice, reflects with common-sense theories as to why people do what they do. It also fits with the notion that behaviours are driven by beliefs and values and that lifestyles and tastes are expressions of personal choice (Shove et al., 2012).
Environmental challenges such as climate change are caused by unsustainable patterns of human activity. Over the last decade, attempts to promote pro-environmental behaviour and sustainable consumption have been important policy responses to such challenges (DEFRA, 2008; DEFRA & DTI, 2003; SCR 2006). A key theme running throughout these policy debates has been the extent to which sustainable consumption or behaviour is within the capacity of individuals to bring out alone, or whether it requires a more fundamental structural change in society (Maniates, 2002; Shove, 2003). Since the late 1990s, it has been increasingly recognised that the innovating
technology approach alone does not achieve the speed and scale of required transitions (Anderson & Bows, 2011). There has been a growing focus on the demand side of sustainable consumption and the potential of intervening in consumer choices and individuals’ behaviour (Dolan et al., 2010).
Because of the importance of individuals’ behaviour to reach sustainable consumption and to move to a circular economy, this research is focused on citizens’ waste separation behaviour. To analyse and explain people’s behaviour, the social practice theory of Shove et al. (2012) is used. This theory is a sociological theory that approaches behavioural change and hereby moves away from using rational choice as the driving force of human behaviour (Jüttner, 2017). In the social practice theory of Shove (2003) is searched for a middle level between agency and structure. This has been found in the everyday life and routines of social practices such as cooking, driving, washing or shopping. In this view, anti- or pro-environmental actions are not seen as the result of individuals’ attitudes, values and beliefs, but as embedded within and occurring as part of social practices (Warde, 2005). The performance of various social practices is seen as part of ‘the routine accomplishment of what people take to be “normal” ways of life’ (Shove, 2004; p. 117). Social practice theory thus is not focused on the moments of individual decision making but on the ‘doing’ of various social practices (Shove & Warde, 2002).
These social practices are the fundamental unit of social existence and that, in Schatzki’s words, ‘both social order and individuality result from practices’ (Schatzki, 1996; p. 13). Like other theories, theories of practice emphasize the underlying and unconscious levels of knowledge and experience through which purposes emerge as desirable and norms as legitimate. The distinctive claim of practice theories is that the social is not located in mental qualities, discourses or interaction, but the reproduction and enactment of practice (Reckwitz, 2002).
Individual behaviours are, primarily, performances of social practices. Rather than being the expression of an individual’s values and attitudes, the behaviour is the observable expression of a social phenomenon: socially shared meanings, knowledge and skills and materials and infrastructure (Spurling et al., 2013). Such behaviour is the tip of the iceberg and the effects of intervening in behaviour are limited. It is the practice entity, the socially embedded underpinning of behaviour, which forms a better target. For example vegetarianism: 5% of UK adults are vegetarian or vegan.
15 However, 95% of UK adults do eat meat. This is not an isolated matter of individual discretion; most people in the UK have a shared understanding, or cultural convention, that a meal contains meat. These understandings have a social history, cultural representations and policy interventions (Spurling et al., 2013).
There are various elements that make up a practice. Shove et al. (2012) introduce the elements ‘meaning’, ‘competence’ and ‘material’. These elements are used to understand practices (Shove & Pantzar, 2005) and are shown in figure 1. This research focuses on the relationships between skills, forms of competence and the citizens’ practice of practice waste separation. The following paragraphs explain these elements.
Figure 1: elements of the social practice theory Source: Shove et al. (2012)
2.3.
Meaning
According to Shove et al. (2012), the element ‘meaning’ is one of the three elements that influence people’s practice. Meaning can be symbolic meanings, ideas, norms and values, beliefs and
aspirations. The ideas, norms and values and aspirations are influenced by the environment citizens live in. Several indicators influence the beliefs of citizens.
In social systems, certain dominant ways of thinking, organizing and working, so-called regimes, have arisen. Such regimes include institutions, routines, rules, but also dominant views and behaviour. These ways of thinking and institutions influence people’s behaviour. Through choices and actions, a way of doing arises that we consider as ‘normal’ (Van Raak et al., 2014).
Behaviour and behavioural change take place at and require effort on an individual level (Stoeva & Alriksson, (2017). People make individual choices. Sometimes, people act from global responsibilities. This means that every choice and action has as little impact on the environment and somebody else's life as possible. Some examples are the use of biodegradable cleaning products, minimize the use of disposable plastic, reduce the consumption of meat, do not throw away any use products that still function and recycle waste (Reijnders, 2014). This individual level has an influence on the meaning of citizens in their behaviour.
In this research, waste separation is the central theme. People have different views on waste separation. Barr (2007) researched three behaviours concerning waste management; waste
16 norms and values of people about the environment, their knowledge and the fact that they worry about the environment. For the respondents in the study of Barr (2007), recycling is normative behaviour, behaviour that is based on rules or guidelines. They believe that recycling products are a good activity because it is good for the environment. Hereby, environmental pollution, the waste mountain getting bigger and bigger and global warming are given as examples (Van der Schoot, 2017). In the study of Berends (2003), respondents point out that for reaching an optimal waste separation, a balance is needed between attention to the environment, enough government control and corresponding enforcement.
When a person does not already have a pro-environmental behaviour, a behavioural change towards a more sustainable behavioural is essential. This can be realized by self-reflection and reflection on the consequences of behaviour. However, it is also possible that people know what is sustainable, but do not want to bear the responsibility to contribute to sustainability. They easily slip off the responsibility to the government or the producer (Reijnders, 2014).
Next to underlying norms and values and normative behaviour, there are some demographic data to find that explain some characteristics of demographic groups that separate their waste, or not. According to the report of Bachus, Pollet, Koopman & Van Ootegem (2015), there are some demographic trends that have a negative influence on waste separation. Firstly, as a result of the ageing society, age categories change; the proportion of families with children and dual-income couples in the age category thirty to fifty is getting smaller. This age category is known as a population group that separate waste. The ageing society also causes more people of the 65+ category. People that have the age between fifty and 65 in the current time frame, usually separate their waste. The attitudes regarding the waste separation of people over 65 naturally improve when this age category is getting older. However, the problem with the elderly may be physical limitations to separate their waste or dispose of it. Next to the ageing society, the group of people between 18 and 50 is relatively getting smaller. This can cause problems (Bachus et al., 2015). The attitudes around waste separation by young couples and singles are often insufficient. Families with young children are considered as a risk group, because of the dispose of diapers and the lack of space to collect waste.
Furthermore, there are some statements according to Didde (2016). The first statement is that gender plays a role in waste separation. Women appear to separate their waste better than men. The level of education is also considered as a factor that influences the waste separation behaviour. Citizens with a higher level of education appear to separate their waste better than citizens with a lower level of education (Rodic, Röbling & Van der Lelij, 2011). However, there is not more literature that confirms these statements.
In addition, besides the mentioned statements, the element ‘time’ plays a role in the capability to separate waste. Separating waste takes time. Cultural norms can play a role in waste separation. In a culture of ‘ease’, citizens are constantly in a rush, where waste separation does not fit in the pattern of behaviour (Midden, 2015). Disposing household waste unseparated costs less time than separated household waste, according to Berends (2003).
When people are motivated by themselves to separate their waste and show sustainable behaviour, it is called intrinsic motivation. This motivation aims to satisfy psychological needs directly in terms of relationships, autonomy, competence, self-acceptance and a sense of community
(Tabernero & Hernández, 2011; p. 661). Values and beliefs need to be present to achieve pro-environmental behaviour. When an individual engages in a certain behaviour purely to obtain intrinsic satisfaction, the individual simply feels satisfied by carrying out the act. According to the
17 research of Tabernero & Hernández (2011), individuals with high intrinsic motivation are likely to engage more in pro-environmental behaviours than individuals with lower intrinsic motivation. People are only to a certain extent aware of their behaviour, especially in the field of sustainability. For example, that is how everyone underestimates their own contribution to food waste and the production of waste. When people get a better insight into their own contribution to waste and pollution, they are rather willing to adjust their behaviour.
2.4.
Competence
The second element of the social practice theory is the element ‘competence’. Competences are skills which include the practical knowledge of the practice, and the skills to execute the practice (Shove et al., 2012). For example, the daily practice of cooking needs competence, otherwise food burns. For the (daily) practice of separating waste, citizens also need certain information and skills to know where which waste belongs: what kind of waste is it? For example, plastic, paper, organic waste or residual waste? Where does it belong?
Information provision about waste separation is one of the most important components in stimulating the right way of waste separation. Having the right knowledge is an important
requirement for desirable behaviour. When people are not aware of how to separate their waste, they are unable to do this in the right way. However, people often do not look up the right
information about waste separation. There are different reasons: people think they already know the rules, they do not know where to find the information or the subject is not personally relevant, people do not bother. Therefore, an approach aimed at stimulating waste separation is essential to provide the target audience with the right knowledge. The traditional way to inform people through sending letters often does not work. A campaign set up by the municipality and cooperating actors and personally approaching the target audience is often more effective (Van Baaren & Dijksterhuis, 2017).
Despite the fact that a lot of information about waste separation is found on different sources, for example, the internet, books, apps etcetera, in practice, questions about this topic rise when people are confronted with separation: when disposing of household waste, at the containers or during the disposal of waste in separated waste bins at the street. At this moment, information sources are often not available, but necessary. Suitable moments or places to communicate about waste management are along the sides of garbage trucks, at containers or garbage bins, at a bill of the waste tax or at the waste calendar. People who are involved with waste management are also seen as a point of contact for people. However, they do not always have knowledge about waste separation and what happens next with waste, so they cannot provide sufficient information to citizens. Information provision is only effective if there is an action perspective. The provided
information must be clear what the reader must do. A concrete action perspective helps to stimulate desirable behaviour. For example: “keep organic waste separate from other waste, by collecting it in separated bins”. To stimulate waste separation, one must make sure that it is clear which waste flows need to be separated. It is desirable that the appearance of the containers fits the recognizable guidelines for waste separation. Usually, the paper container is blue, glass is indicated with yellow, organic waste has the colour green, residual waste is grey, and plastic is indicated with orange (Van Baaren & Dijksterhuis, 2017).
Next to providing information and having the right knowledge, citizens also need to be capable to bring their waste to the underground containers. For example, for the elderly, this can be
18 a physical limitation. If a citizen is not capable to go by foot, bike or car to the underground container depot, residual waste cannot be disposed of in the right way.
2.4.1. Extrinsic motivation
When citizens do not have the intrinsic motivation and competence to separate waste, external factors can provide information that influences citizens’ skills and eventually their daily behaviour. This is called extrinsic motivation. This motivation is an external knowledge source, that provides information about waste separation, that influence the execution of the practice. Change initiated from the outside is the result of extrinsic motivation. A party external from the changing person provides reasons and handles for change, for example, the legislation of waste separation. External stimuli force people to change their behaviour, reach a product that already exists or a new routine (Reijnders, 2014). It is important that the external ideas are appealing to people, they should not deviate too much from the patterns and habits that people are used to. People can be confronted with their behaviour: the way this confrontation takes place is essential. As soon people think their behaviour is relatively poor, the urge to change is less because they do not feel responsible
(Draulans, 2012).
According to Lindén & Carlsson-Kanyama (2003), four types of external measures can be applied to motivate citizens to perform active pro-environmental behaviours: administrative measures (legal obligations), economic measures (fees and taxes), physical measures (placement of recycle bins and frequency of waste collection) and information (campaigns and prompts). These tools should be combined to make waste separation at home more convenient, which increase citizen participation rates (Bernstad, 2014; Martin et al., 2006).
It is important how a new system or desired behaviour is presented. Communication is an important part of a change process (De Caluwé & Vermaak, 2006; p. 125). According to Lewin & Gold (1999; p. 113-114), people must know why they must change their behaviour. They need to be stimulated, whereby they want to implement the change as well and they need to know who they can change. If they do not have this knowledge, the execution of an imposed behavioural change is impossible (Lewin & Gold, 1999; p. 113-114). Through communication, information about the way upon which a (behavioural) change needs to be implemented gets obtained, without too many problems and resistance. Also according to Van Raak et al. (2014), continuous, intensive and flexible communication with the citizen is a success factor, wherefore the response improves. Most
discussions about the behavioural effects focus on the collection technique or logistics and less on direct communication. An underexposed theme is the feedback to citizens about achieved results. If citizens get more feedback about the results, a behavioural change will last longer.
However, extrinsic motivation does not always work. A disadvantage is that people can get dependent on the external factors that are given. When these factors are dropped, the behavioural change is less stable and permanent (Fairly, Stallen & Sent, 2013; p. 29), they constantly need incentives to show this desired behaviour.
2.4.2. The waste coach
An example of extrinsic motivation is the use of a waste coach. This person provides reasons and handles to change the behaviour of citizens in their waste separation. Implementing a new system like the reversed waste collection system can cause several obstacles. For example, uncertainties, questions and explanation about the material. Often when a new waste collection system is implemented in a municipality or city, information sources are used to update citizens. Examples of
19 these sources are sending letters, posting news messages through various channels such as the newspaper or the internet. However, these information sources do not always provide a clear
explanation of the new waste collection system. The new system combined with the deployment of a waste coach can offer a solution. The waste coach has different tasks:
- Helping with questions about waste separation and about the use of underground containers - Keeping an eye on the underground container depots
- Starting a conversation with citizens that have questions about waste - Dispose of residual waste for disabled people
- Offering customized solutions at different locations - Cleaning up of waste next to underground containers - Checking of the plastic waste containers
- Being present at clean-up actions and other waste-related activities (Van Oers, 2018). The idea behind the waste coach is that human intervention is needed between the government and the residents of a certain municipality. The tasks of the waste coach vary from explaining rules, checking around the underground containers for disruptions and illegal dumping and engage with entrepreneurs’ and owners’ associations to seek for custom solutions for problems with the waste coach that might occur. The daily presence of waste coaches in a neighbourhood, village or city lead to a face of the waste policy. They also make a form of social control. However, the waste coach is no maintainer and does also not act as such. Instead of handing out fines, the waste coach can engage in the conversation, or, if necessary, report behaviour by maintainers or supervisors (Lentekracht, 2018).
The waste coach has been used in several municipalities in the Netherlands; internet research shows that the municipalities of Arnhem, Beuningen, Blaricum, Breda, Nijmegen, Tilburg, Twente and Veenendaal have a waste coach. However, this is by no means a complete list of waste coaches in the Netherlands. The use of a waste coach has been claimed to be a positive addition to policy implementation (Schravendeel, 2017; p. 2). Despite this positive opinion, not all reactions to the waste coach are positive. A column of Youp van ‘t Hek in the NRC (2018) concludes that the waste coach is not always well received or taken seriously. People experience the waste coach as patronizing, or do not consider the message of the waste coach important enough to separate their waste.
There are situations where people experience resistance to separate waste. For example, resistance arises when people imposed a new waste policy and have the feeling to be limited in their freedom (reactance), or people do not trust the content of the message (scepticism). People have habits, to change these is difficult. Taking away this resistance is the first step to change. People are not always well informed about waste separation; this ensures that people tend to believe in myths about waste and do not separate it. To inform people about waste separation, the resistance automatically reduces according to Van Baaren & Dijksterhuis (2017). The right knowledge ensures that false myths slowly disappear. Therefore, the method of providing information works well to take away scepticism.
2.4.3. Door-stepping
The way how the waste coach informs citizens is done in several ways. The information is always focused on informing citizens and try to improve their waste separation behaviour. Timlett & Williams (2008) researched different methods to realize behavioural changes in the field of recycling and reduce environmental pollution. One of the methods is called ‘door-stepping’; going from door
20 to door. It implies that persons, for example, waste coaches, that are involved in the recycling
program, knock at the doors of residents to provide information, having a (usually short) interaction at the doorstep. Branded tabards are often worn to give them credibility (Dai et al., 2015). The method door-stepping is one of the activities that are carried out by the waste coach.
Four most significant studies of door-stepping about recycling show that they each have different goals, activities and expected impact. Read (1999) presented door-stepping as an especially educational instrument which delivered recycling knowledge and tried to let citizens recycle. Timlett & Williams (2008) used it as a tool for persuasion. Cotterill et al. (2009) indicate their goal as to improve awareness and attitudes and to remove structural barriers and Bernstad et al. (2013) focused on its use as a variation on information delivery; oral versus written information. The results show that personal incentives and feedback are effective in reducing environmental pollution.
Door-stepping can be broken down to several elements, in total the following eleven elements:
1. Knowledge; providing basic information and what materials are where to find; 2. Facilities; equipment and the number of employees to make it feasible; 3. Skills; citizens’ practical ability to sort;
4. The belief of capabilities; do citizens believe they can separate waste?
5. The belief of consequences; are citizens aware of the fact that their actions can make a difference?
6. Norms and social influences; the belief that recycling is considered as ‘normal’ and others may have an opinion about it;
7. Prompts; also called reminders that make sure that citizens get re-motived to do the desired actions;
8. Role clarification; who should do what?
9. Action planning; which actions would be needed to make this happen? 10. Motivation; extra pushes towards the making of a decision to recycle;
11. Emotion; the capacity to capture positive or negative emotions which might be significant to the observe the behaviour (Dai et al., 2015).
In this research, it becomes clear which elements are used as a waste coach.
2.5.
Material
The last element that plays a role in the social practice theory is material. Schatzki argues that ‘understanding specific practices always involves apprehending material configurations’ (Schatzki, 2001; p. 3). Reckwitz explains this with a familiar example: “in order to play football, we need a ball and goals as indispensable ‘resources’” (Reckwitz, 2002; p. 252). Shove et al. (2012; p. 14) means by materials “including things, infrastructure, tools, hardware, technologies, tangible physical entities, objects and the stuff of which objects are made”. Citizens need to have enough opportunities to separate and dispose of their waste. In this paragraph, the required materials for the practice are explained that are needed to separate waste.
2.5.1. Reversed waste collection
Municipalities choose individually for a certain policy to collect waste. One of the methods to separate waste at the source is the reversed waste collection. This method has an influence on the material that plays a role in the practice of waste separation. Reversed waste separation means that
21 recyclable materials like paper, plastic and organic waste are picked up at the door by a waste
collection company, and residual waste must be disposed at an underground container by the citizen (Gradus & Dijkgraaf, 2017). Producing and disposing of residual waste is discouraged by placing the containers at a distance or collecting it less frequently, so the citizen must take more effort. The waste separation percentage increases if dry recyclables are collected more frequently than the rest of the waste. The less residual waste is collected, the more recyclable waste gets separated. If recyclables are collected more often than residual waste, it has a positive effect (Bout, 2011; p. 12).
However, not all reactions to the reversed waste collection are positive. According to Gradus & Dijkgraaf (2017), reversed waste collection is hardly effective. Increasing the frequency of
collecting plastic, paper and organic waste at the door has no or only a limited effect. Municipalities that already implemented the new collection system claim that it does have an effect, often combine it with information campaigns or waste coaches. Moreover, not every citizen has the opportunity to dispose of their residual waste by themselves. For example, elderly people sometimes are not able to go to the underground containers. What works is post-separation or waste separation at the source, combined with differentiated waste tax (diftar). By diftar, there is a variable rate for residual waste and recyclables are collected for free. Nevertheless, we must realize that diftar is difficult to implement, particularly in urban areas. But even with the combination of reversed waste collection and diftar, Gradus & Dijkgraaf (2017) think that this system does not work. It is hard to implement, and such a system is only possible with a complicated card system. This evokes the necessary resistance. A reason that municipalities still choose for reversed waste collection is that reducing residual waste is high on the priority list. In 2020, the amount of residual waste must be decreased by three-quarters, according to the national government (Van de Wiel, 2018).
2.5.2. Unit-based pricing systems
In many countries worldwide, waste collection is funded by different forms of taxes. It is usual for house owners to pay for waste collection by separate billing or directly through waste bags or a container tag fee system (Bilitewski, 2008). An example of billing is ‘pay-as-you-throw’ strategies. These systems are becoming widely applied in waste management systems. The main purpose is to support a more sustainable – from economic, environmental and social points of view – management of waste flows. The pay-as-you-throw system fits with the idea of the ‘polluter-pays’. This refers to the economic responsibility of the producer for its own waste (Elia, Gnomi & Tornese, 2015). Each citizen must economically contribute to the overall cost of service based on the waste quantity they threw away. In order to promote waste prevention and recycling, a number of municipalities have introduced a unit-based pricing system. In general, the Dutch unit-based pricing systems generate prices for unsorted and compostable waste, while the collection of recyclables (glass, paper, plastic and textiles) are free. This gives citizens the incentive to sort their waste and to change their behaviour.
There are four different types of unit-based pricing systems, also called ‘pay-as-you-throw’ systems (Dahlén & Lagerkvist, 2009): volume-, frequency-, bag- and weight-based systems (Dijkgraaf & Gradus, 2004). These systems are being applied for several years all over the world (Canterbury, 1994; Skumatz, 2008). Looking at the European Union, the transition to pay-as-you-throw systems also has been enforced due to the current European Waste Directive (Elia et al., 2015). The volume-based program allows households to choose between different volumes of a collection container or the frequency of the waste containers. A more refined marginal price results from a frequency-based system, in which the household pays for the number of times the container is presented at the
22 street. The payment is not dependent on the actual amount of waste the container contains. In the bag-based system, households must buy a special bag with specific marks. Other bags without relevant marks are not collected. The bag-based system is a more refined pricing system than the frequency-based system, as the volume of the bag is less than the volume of the container. An important difference compared with other unit-based pricing systems is that the most frequently used bag-based system leaves organic waste unpriced. The weight-based system shows the most flexible results. The collection vehicle weighs the container and combines this information with the identity of the owner, stored in a chip integrated into the container. A greater weight of waste results in a higher collection fee (Dijkgraaf & Gradus, 2004). The reversed waste collection is a pay-as-you-throw system because citizens need to bring their residual waste to underground containers and citizens can choose how big their container is and how often it gets emptied. Every ‘throw’ costs a certain amount of money. Thus, this collection system is an example of a volume- and frequency-based system.
However, some researchers question the effects of the unit-based pricing systems and have identified disadvantages (Berglund, 2005; Jenkins et al., 2003; Nilsson, 2002). Thogersen (2003) discusses the economic incentives. These cause negative effects that undermine the individual’s intrinsic motivations. External interventions, for example, pay-by-volume schemes may enhance internalized motivation by providing positive feedback on an individual’s competence and behaviour. Thogersen (2003) stated that internalized motivation is much more important for recycling than small economic incentives. Moreover, citizens may take their waste to neighbouring municipalities or may dump their waste illegally. There is no evidence that surrounding municipalities without unit-based pricing systems collect a part of the waste produced in municipalities with a unit-unit-based pricing system. The evidence on illegal dumping is more mixed. Fullerton & Kinnaman (1996) estimate that illegal dumping constitutes 28 per cent of the total reduction in the waste collection at the street and Hong (1999) shows that dumping was substantial after the implementation of the unit-based pricing system in Korea. However, Reschovsky & Stone (1994) find no relation between dumping and unit-based pricing.
Dahlén & Lagerkvist (2009) performed a literature review of unit-based pricing systems in Europe. The review summarized the main reported strengths and weaknesses of pay-as-you-throw systems. Reported strengths are:
- The pay-as-you-throw systems are generally well accepted by the households; - The costs that users must pay are fair;
- The waste in containers and bags is with at least fifteen per cent and with a maximum of ninety per cent reduced;
- Transparency of waste management costs is ensured; - The sorting of recyclables is increased;
- Home composting is encouraged.
Dahlén & Lagerkvist (2009) also show that there are some reported weaknesses: - The costs are increased; both investment and operational;
- ‘Waste tourism’ is encouraged. This means that waste is moved to neighbouring municipalities;
- Illegal waste dumping is encouraged;
- Recyclables are more polluted with products that do not belong there.
However, evaluations of the effects of the pay-as-you-throw systems are scarce (Dahlén & Lagerkvist, 2009). One likely reason is the lack of generally valid, comparable data. Even if waste data had been
23 available, it would have been difficult to interpret the change over time, because multiple influential factors also change over time. Thogersen (2003) pointed out several changes that usually appear with the introduction of a pay-as-you-throw system. The information campaigns intensify, just like facilities for collecting recyclables. Also, the amount of waste ascribed to households is registered in a new system with higher precision than before.
2.5.3. Acquired material
To execute the practice waste separation, there are materials needed to enable waste separation. According to Van Baaren & Dijksterhuis (2017), to activate people to separate their waste, there must be a few practical requirements. It is important that people have enough opportunities for this. These opportunities consist of sufficient supply options, time and space.
Primarily, for a practice to exist, it requires space where its performance can take place (Spurling et al., 2013). An example is found in high-rise buildings. Citizens need containers or garbage bags to separate their waste and store it until the waste collector empties them. Thus, these
containers also are a stopover before the waste collector comes to collect the waste. Citizens have less space in flats than in houses with an outdoor area or garden to place their containers (Midden, 2015). High-rise buildings have other requirements than houses with an outdoor area. Containers must fit in size, but also need to be portable, even on stairs. Citizens can also have a smaller waste bin inside their home before they throw their garbage away in the bigger containers.
Because of implementing the reversed waste collection system, citizens not only need containers at home to separate the recyclable waste flows, they also need underground containers. These underground container depots serve to the disposal of residual waste. Citizens do not have a container for residual waste anymore but need to bring their residual waste to these depots. Without the underground containers, there is no other way to provide this specific waste.
The size and design of the containers are also important. The design supports and stimulates citizens physical and cognitive to separate waste efficiently. Lids and openings can activate citizens to separate waste (Midden, 2015). For example, the openings in a glass container are round and have the colours of the glass that belongs to it. When the same symbols are used on the containers at home and at the underground container depots, it helps people to separate their waste properly, because the symbols ensure recognition.
Moreover, to stimulate waste separation, containers need to be clean. This especially applies to the underground container depots. People quickly find provisions to be dirty, causing no desirable behaviour. Also, every visible action of cleaning influences the user. Next to the cleanliness of the containers, they also need to be empty, so citizens always can dispose of their waste (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, 2016). There must be no obstructing circumstances for the desired behaviour. To make sure the containers are empty, there also need to be enough containers.
Furthermore, to open the underground containers, citizens need a special pass. When they use this pass, the lid of the container opens. Every time this lid opens, a certain amount of money is being debited. Without this pass, citizens cannot dispose of their residual waste. For people who live in high-rise buildings, they also can dispose of their plastic waste into an underground container. Citizens do not have to pay for disposing their plastic waste into underground containers.
In addition, infrastructure plays a significant role for citizens to give them the opportunity to dispose of waste. This can be seen from different points of view. Without infrastructure, garbage trucks cannot drive to the citizens’ homes. Moreover, the reversed waste collection method, citizens in the designated research area need to dispose of their residual waste to underground container
24 depots. When there is no cycle- or footpath or road, citizens are limited in their options to dispose of their residual waste.
2.6.
Conceptual model
The information derived from the literature research is illustrated schematically in the conceptual model, presented in figure 2.
Figure 2: the conceptual model
The context of this conceptual model is the practice of waste separation and is based on the social practice theory by Shove et al. (2012). The practice is influenced by the three elements meaning, material and competence.
The first element ‘meaning’ is explained in this research as symbolic meanings, ideas, norms and values, beliefs and aspirations (Shove et al., 2012). Next to beliefs and norms and values of citizens, there are more components that belong to this element. The first component is time (Midden, 2015). Without time, people are not able to separate their waste in the right way.
Furthermore, people that are educated would better separate their waste. The middle-income class is known as a population group that often separates their waste (Didde, 2016). In this research is also mentioned that women appear to separate their waste better than men. In addition, the age
category thirty to 65 is known as an age category that separate waste (Bachus et al., 2015). Families with young children are considered as a risk group, because of the dispose of diapers and the lack of space to collect waste. Moreover, when a person does not already have a pro-environmental behaviour, self-reflection can help to realize a more sustainable behaviour (Reijnders, 2014). At last,
25 normative behaviour – behaviour that is based on rules or guidelines – improves the practice of waste separation, because people believe they are doing the right thing (Barr, 2007).
The second element ‘competence’ is explained in this research as skills which include the practical knowledge of the practice, and the skills to execute the practice (Shove et al., 2012). First, information provision about waste separation is one of the components in stimulating the right way of waste separation (Van Baaren & Dijksterhuis, 2017). Secondly, having the right knowledge is an important requirement for desirable behaviour. Furthermore, communication is an important part of changing the practice (De Caluwé & Vermaak, 2006). Moreover, the use of a waste coach can
function as an extrinsic motivation to influence the practice of waste separation. At last, people need to be physically capable to dispose of their waste (Bernstad, 2014; Martin et al., 2006).
The third element ‘material’ is explained in this research as things, infrastructure, tools, hardware, technologies, tangible physical entities, objects and the stuff of which objects are made to enable a practice (Shove, 2012). Firstly, citizens need space to separate their waste (Spurling et al., 2013). In this space, there can be placed containers and bags to collect the waste. In addition, the size and design of the containers can support and stimulate citizens to separate waste efficiently (Midden, 2015).
Furthermore, citizens need to bring their residual waste to underground containers. These containers need to be clean and empty at all time (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, 2016). There also must be present infrastructure, so the people can reach the underground container depots and the garbage truck can reach the peoples’ homes. Moreover, citizens need a waste card to open the underground containers. Without this pass, citizens cannot open these.
26
3. Methodology
In this chapter, the methodology of this research is explained. For each sub-question is determined which method is used to answer the main research question: “What are the factors that influence the behaviour of non-compliers on waste separation in the municipality of Beuningen?”. A
combination of a document analysis, observations, interviews and a media analysis is chosen, which are executed in the municipality of Beuningen and further elaborated in this chapter.
3.1. Case study
In this research, a case study is chosen as a research method. A case study is a research where the researcher tries to get an insight into one or more objects or processes. The case study is a holistic method, that expresses itself in the use of qualitative and open methods of data collection, for example, the open interview, observation and the interpretation of documents. Obtaining an integral image of the case plays a role in the ethnographic method of data collection. Forming an integral image is also one of the advantages of a case study. This image can be beneficial in research that is focused on changing an existing situation. One characteristic of a case study is that there are a relatively small number of research cases. Working with small numbers has several consequences for the implementation of the research and the results because the results are more difficult to
generalize to other municipalities. The second characteristic of a case study is that there can be worked more in-depth. This depth is achieved by working with different forms of intensive data collection, which are elaborated in the following paragraphs. In addition, characterising for a case study is that the case is being studied in its natural environment (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). Therefore, the research is at location, namely the municipality of Beuningen.
3.2. Research area
In this research, the municipality of Beuningen is the research area. Beuningen is a municipality located in Gelderland, the Netherlands. It consists of multiple villages: Beuningen, Ewijk, Weurt and Winssen. The municipality of Beuningen counts 25.288 inhabitants (www.almanak.overheid.nl) and 11.052 households (CBS, 2019).
