Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /wasman

Attitudes and behaviour towards waste management in the Dublin, Ireland region

M. Purcell a,b,*, W.L. Magette b

a Green Campus Facilitator, Cork Institute of Technology, Bishopstown, Cork, Irelandb Centre for Water Resources Research, School of Architecture, Landscape & Civil Engineering, University College Dublin, Newstead, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 26 July 2009Accepted 7 February 2010Available online 7 March 2010

0956-053X/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.02.021

* Corresponding author. Address: Green CampusTechnology, Bishopstown, Cork, Ireland. Tel.: +353 (0

E-mail address: mary.purcell@cit.ie (M. Purcell).

The hypothesis of this research was that attitudes about the management of biodegradable municipalwaste (BMW) are spatially variable, even within a city of modest (1.2 million) population. For a selectnumber of representative electoral districts in the Dublin, Ireland region, residents were surveyed regard-ing attitudes towards waste management in general, and BMW management in particular. A total of 850survey responses were collected. Door-to-door interviews produced 688 responses in the residential sec-tor; these were supplemented by 162 responses to a web-based survey.

The surveys revealed that the majority of households use local authority, rather than private, waste col-lection services (both are available). The majority of residents, regardless of the local authority in whichthey live, were satisfied with their waste management service. ‘‘Reducing the quantity of waste gener-ated” was regarded the most important future issue for 28% of residential respondents. Statistical anal-yses of the survey responses showed that the local authority in which respondents residedsignificantly influenced most responses (including waste collection service used, waste service satisfac-tion and backyard composting activity). Many responses (including waste service satisfaction, wastemanagement influences) were also significantly related to the respondents’ personal characteristics(e.g., education level, type of accommodation, age, etc.). These statistical results proved the hypothesisof the research and demonstrated that waste management initiatives designed for one area of the city(or, indeed, for uniform application to the city as a whole) could ignore the needs of other areas. The sur-vey responses suggest that targeted intervention strategies would lead to improved diversion rates ofBMW from landfill, a requirement of the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the residential sector, socio-economic status and housingcharacteristics affect not only the amount of municipal waste thatindividuals generate, but also how they manage it (Emery et al.,2003). Positive relationships have been identified between partic-ipation levels and number of waste segregations individuals mustmake at source (Noehammer and Byer, 1997); collection frequencyand the type of collection container used (Platt et al., 1991); theday of the week when collections are made (Folz, 1991); and eco-nomic incentives (Harder and Knox, 1992; Noehammer and Byer,1997). Social pressure may also influence behaviour regardingwaste management (Barr, 2003). When designing a waste manage-ment programme the needs of householders must be recognised(Lansana, 1992). These needs may vary among different housingtypes and different areas, for example, among local authorities.Logically, no single, uniform solution can be expected to addressall waste management requirements in a diverse service area; nev-

ll rights reserved.

Facilitator, Cork Institute of) 21 4335105.

ertheless, this is how many municipal solid waste managementsystems are currently planned and operated.

Huge demographic changes have occurred in the Dublin regionover the past 15 years. For example, the population in Dublin in-creased by 14% (1991–2006), and residents of non-Irish originsnow comprise 13% of the Dublin population as opposed to 3%15 years ago (CSO, 2008). It is reasonable to assume that majorchanges in attitudes and behaviours towards waste managementhave transpired as a result of these demographic changes, as wellas Government’s efforts to raise the ‘‘profile” of waste managementissues through focussed initiatives such as the ‘‘Race againstWaste” (Lyle and Bailie, 2004) media campaign. Recent studieshave revealed that waste management is an issue of concern forhouseholders (EPA, 2006); yet, while recognising waste manage-ment as a problematic area, most respondents felt they were doinga good job at managing their household waste. Solid waste man-agement is receiving increasing attention due to its impact onthe public concern for the environment (De Oliveria Simonettoand Borenstein, 2007).

Any successful waste strategy must be inclusive, fully inte-grated with economic and social practices, and incorporate all sec-tors of society. This means that a wide range of social groups and

1998 M. Purcell, W.L. Magette / Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006

actors must be actively involved (Coakley and Cunningham, 2004)in successful waste management planning. ‘‘Waste management”is a process set within a wider framework of social and politicalstructures (EPA, 2006) and, therefore, needs to be considered inthese contexts. Depending on where one lives, ‘‘optimum” wastemanagement activities can be easy or difficult to practice. Forexample, apartments often inhabited by low-income residentsare typically small and therefore, may have limitations on theamount of space available for waste storage. A study by the EPA(2008) found ‘‘space” for waste storage to be the biggest issue citedby survey respondents, especially if there is no garden or desig-nated area available for this purpose.

Human characteristics also affect waste management behav-iour. Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills and Aspirations (KASA) (Bennett,1975) determine an individual’s behaviour and also the ability tochange behaviour. Lack of understanding of a recycling programmeon the part of the residents can negatively affect the recycling par-ticipation rate, as well as the quality of waste presented. Pro-grammes that are complicated and poorly communicated maycontribute to low participation rates. People must know how to re-cycle and be motivated to recycle, and waste management proce-dures must be convenient, inexpensive, and have few or nobarriers (Clarke and Maantay, 2006) to be successful.

1.1. The Irish situation and basis for this research

Morrissey and Phillips (2007) recognised that waste manage-ment problems could continue to arise in Ireland unless a greaterunderstanding of the people and issues is achieved. Research car-ried out in Ireland (EPA, 2006) concludes that local sensitivity inpolicymaking is essential (in terms of demographics, tenure, etc.)to developing a sustainable waste management approach. Whilegains have been main in managing some solid wastes, Ireland isin real danger of missing mandated targets for the diversion of bio-degradable municipal waste (BMW) from landfill, as set by theLandfill Directive 1999/31/EC (EPA, 2009).

2. Objectives

Previously, Purcell and Magette (2009) showed that waste gen-eration was spatially variable in the region (Dublin, Ireland) wherethe research reported here was to be conducted. The hypotheses ofthe present research were that attitudes about the management ofBMW, as well as about waste generation, are also spatially variable.If both hypotheses are true, this research reasons that managementof BMW can be better accomplished by targeting site-specificintervention strategies than by using the ‘‘one size fits all” ap-proach characterised by current design practice.

3. Methods

This study was conducted in the Dublin, Ireland region, whichconsists of 92,227 ha, and is comprised of four Local Authorityareas, namely Dublin City, Fingal, South Dublin and Dún LaoghaireRathdown. In 2006, the population of the region was approxi-mately 1.2 million. Each Local Authority manages solid waste sep-arately, but all co-operate in doing so under a regional wastemanagement strategy. The scale of study was the Electoral District(the smallest administrative area for which population statisticsare published). There are 322 Electoral Districts located throughoutthe Dublin region, all of varying sizes (e.g., ‘‘Ushers” of 14 ha to‘‘Lusk” with 4238 ha) and ranging from inner city districts withhigh population densities to rural areas with dispersed popula-tions. Areas distributed across the four Dublin local authorities,from inner city to rural fringes, were investigated; these repre-

sented a diverse population of different housing types and socio-economic groups.

3.1. Survey compilation

The survey was devised to examine residential behaviours andattitudes towards waste management, particularly BMW, for theDublin region. Recent research (EPA, 2006; Steel, 1995; Davies,1999) guided the selection of topics for the surveys. Questionsand topics were selected to gauge not only attitudes and behaviourtowards waste issues, but also perceptions and future concernsabout waste management in Ireland. In hopes that the researchhypotheses would be proved true, questions were devised to helpdelineate intervention strategies that would lead to optimal diver-sion of BMW and could be tailored to specific areas within a LocalAuthority. A desire to understand the reasons behind differentwaste behaviours and perceptions for waste activity were animportant part of this research, as these details often were lackingfrom previous research. The surveys also considered that phenom-enal waste management changes have occurred recently in the re-gion, not only in the numbers and types of waste servicesproviders, but also in waste practices (i.e. introduction of a three-bin system and introduction of charges for waste collection). Six-teen waste management questions were included in the question-naire, along with seven personal questions. Surveys were kept asconcise as possible to keep respondents’ interest by minimising re-sponse time, while at the same time getting enough informationfrom which to form realistic conclusions.

3.2. Questionnaire design

Questionnaires included forced choice, scaled and open-endedquestions. Qualitative questions were included so respondentscould expand on their ideas and opinions. Quantitative questionsgave measurable insights into respondents’ waste behaviour andfuture concerns. The questionnaire was designed with twosections:

3.2.1. Section 1. Waste management

� Personal waste services questions.� Personal waste behaviour.� Personal attitudes about services.� Personal influences.� Perceived behaviour.� Factors that may limit good behaviour.� Attitudes/actions to waste.� Future concerns.

3.2.2. Section 2. Personal information

� Demographic factors, for example, age, gender, occupation,household type and size and relevant local authority (electoraldistrict) of residence.

More detail about the questionnaires can be found in Purcell(2009).

3.3. Residential survey

Thirteen Electoral Districts (Fig. 1) were chosen from the 322districts in the region for inclusion in the door-to-door survey.Selection of districts was based on two factors:

Fig. 1. Electoral districts included in the survey in the Dublin region.

M. Purcell, W.L. Magette / Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006 1999

1. Predicted BMW generation rate (Purcell and Magette, 2009).Contiguous electoral districts were sought representing a highrate of generation and a low rate of generation.

2. Coverage among local authorities. Electoral districts weresought that would represent all four local authorities, i.e. DublinCity, South Dublin, Fingal and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown (Fig. 1illustrates the location of the electoral districts included in thedoor-to-door residential survey).

Within each district, the specific residences selected for inter-viewing was based on:

1. Population and household statistics. A sample size of 5% of res-idences was selected for each of the 13 electoral districts. Thisproportion of households for each electoral district yielded a

sample size (850 respondents) that, at the 95% confidence inter-val, gave a confidence interval of 3.33 and was viewed as being‘‘representative”.

2. Access to residents.3. Time and labour available (two interviewers, 2 months).

3.3.1. Residential web surveyAn internet-based (or ‘‘web”) survey was designed to supple-

ment the door-to-door residential survey. Except for asking forthe local authority of residence (instead of the electoral district),the web survey was identical to the door-to-door survey. Re-sponses to the web survey were analysed both separately andaggregated with those from the door-to-door survey. The web-based survey served to enhance the response rate and add to the

2000 M. Purcell, W.L. Magette / Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006

range in respondent type (demographics etc.). In order to identifyany repeat respondents and avoid multiple counting of their re-sponses, the survey collected the respondent ID number from theircomputer and the time and date of survey completion. As withother questions, the survey relied on the honesty of respondentswhen reporting their local authority of residence. The web-basedresidential survey was hosted on a website (www.dublinwaste.ie)dedicated to solid waste management issues in the Dublin region.

3.4. Conducting surveys

Face-to-face interviewing of residents was chosen above othermeans of surveying (e.g., telephone interviews or postal surveys)as it was postulated that this would elicit a more substantial re-sponse rate. Surveys administered by interview in research by Zhu-ang et al. (2008) yielded a 95% effective response rate, as did Huanget al. (2006) in their survey handed out in public areas. Door-to-door surveys carried out by Vidanaarachchi et al. (2006) also gen-erated a high usable response rate of 90%.

Surveys administered by post were not considered to be viabledue to the generally low response rate reported for this techniquein the literature. Postal surveys by Wilson and Williams (2007)generated a 42.1% response rate, while postal surveys carried outby Martin et al. (2006) generated a 33.3% response rate. Even sur-veys that were hand-delivered with a prize draw incentive forpostal return, in research by Curran et al. (2006), only yielded a32% response rate. Postal surveys by Williams and Kelly (2003) re-ceived a response rate of 72.5%, which was atypically high. Simi-larly, telephone surveys were ruled out because these weredeemed to be impersonal and intrusive.

Although door-to-door, face-to-face interviews were believed tobe more personal and better suited than other methods of survey-ing as the primary method of eliciting responses, it was believedthat internet-based survey instruments could supplement the tra-ditional paper-based surveys. Surveys were assembled using theSurvey Monkey™ web site (Survey Monkey, 2008). Surveys wereconducted from 31st January to the 18th March 2008. In order tosolicit a substantial response, the surveys were anonymous. Inter-views were conducted at both weekends and weekdays as well asduring working hours and after working hours, in order to includeas many categories of the population as possible during the surveyperiod. If a resident declined to be interviewed, or there was no onehome at a residence contacted, interviewers proceeded to the nextresidence until the desired sample size of respondents wasachieved.

The internet-based survey that complemented the face-to-faceinterviews was placed on an interactive waste management web-site (www.dublinwaste.ie), which acts as a waste information focalpoint for the four local authorities in Dublin. This website registersan average of 110,000 ‘‘hits” per month (Dublinwaste.ie, 2008), andthe web managers linked the questionnaire to the home page ofthe site for high visibility. Respondents participated in the web sur-vey solely because of personal interest.

3.5. Statistical analyses

Responses were analysed using the Statistical Package for SocialSciences (SPSS, 14.0) (SPSS, 2006). Logistic regression (Agresti,1996) was used to determine the strength of relationships betweenfactors, for example, if age group could be used to predict respon-dent’s waste behaviour. Logistic regression is a generalised linearmodel, used to predict the probability of occurrence of an eventby fitting data to a logistic curve. Logistic regression predicts theprobability of a response (yes or no) on a scale of 0–1, which trans-forms probabilities to odds (likelihood). The p-value (significance)less than 0.05 was used by convention (Agresti, 1996).

Linear multiple regression was also used to examine relation-ships between more than one factor, for example, predicting theimportance of different waste management types according tohousehold size, for which the predictor variable was the numberof household members. Linear multiple regression was used to pre-dict each of six importance response variables (i.e., the level ofimportance respondents ascribed to different elements in an inte-grated waste management system). On the survey, respondentswere asked to assign importance to an element on a scale from 0to 3 (very important to not important at all). For the analysis of re-sponses as a function of the number of household members thisscaling was reversed, so that higher numerical values corre-sponded to higher perceptions of importance for an element (i.e.3 = very important and 0 = not important at all).

Differences between responses due to the survey modality (i.e.,responses from web-based respondents versus door-to-doorrespondents) for the residential sector were also analysed. A t-testnot assuming equal variance was conducted (based on the Levenetest) (Ott and Longnecker, 2004). The Mann–Whitney U test (Ottand Longnecker, 2004) was also used to analyse whether both sur-vey modality responses came from the same distribution (i.e. thattheir probability distributions were equal).

4. Results and discussion

In total 850 residential surveys (combining door-to-door andweb based) were conducted, of which 688 were door-to-doorinterviews.

4.1. Residential survey

Most (63.4%) of residential survey respondents were femalewhile 36.6% were male. Of 131 respondents were from Dublin City;214 from South Dublin; 188 from Fingal; and 155 from Dún Laogh-aire Rathdown local authorities, representing 5% of households inthe surveyed electoral districts. Complementing the door-to-doorsurveys were 162 residential survey responses obtained via web-based surveys; these had no pre-determined demographic or geo-graphic profile.

4.1.1. Waste collection serviceThe results of a chi-square test of independence suggested a sig-

nificant association between the chosen waste collection supplierand the local authority (v2(3) = 32.50, p < 0.001). Most respondentsin each local authority use local authority waste collection servicesrather than private collection or personal management. In terms ofpercentages of respondents using local authority services, the rankorder was Dublin City (89.4%, N = 208), South Dublin (83.3%, N =245), Fingal (73.5%, N = 215), and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown(68.4%, N = 177). The results of a chi-square test of independencealso suggested a significant association between private waste col-lection use and the local authority (v2(3) = 59.344, p < 0.001). Interms of percentages of respondents using private collection, therank order was Dún Laoghaire Rathdown (32.2%), Fingal (27.9%),South Dublin (14.3%), and Dublin City (5.3%).

4.1.2. Waste management satisfactionOne of the questions in the survey of the residential sector was

designed to gauge the level of satisfaction that respondents hadwith their waste collection service. The vast majority (73%) ofrespondents were ‘Satisfied’ with their waste collection service,while approximately 14% were ‘Not Satisfied’ (v2(3) = 1087.14,p 6 0.001). Fig. 2 illustrates respondents waste service satisfactionfor each local authority area.

Fig. 2. Percentage of residential respondents and level of waste service satisfaction,by local authority.

Fig. 3. Percentage of residential respondents in each local authority who makecompost from food and garden wastes.

M. Purcell, W.L. Magette / Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006 2001

4.1.3. Waste management influencesThe survey of the residential sector sought to determine what

types of influences respondents felt were effective in helping alterwaste management behaviour. The results of a chi-square test ofindependence suggested a significant association between respon-dents’ views of advertising as an influence and their local authorityof residence (v2(3) = 29.921, p < 0.001), and between politicalparty influence and local authority of residence (v2(3) = 9.216,p = 0.027). In three of the four local authorities (Fingal, South Dub-lin and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown), there were more peopleresponding ‘‘Yes” than ‘‘No” to the question of advertisements hav-ing an influence on their waste management behaviour; however,there were approximately the same number saying ‘‘Yes” and ‘‘No”in areas surveyed within the Dublin City local authority. In all localauthorities, there were more people responding ‘‘No” than ‘‘Yes” topolitical party being an influence on their waste practice; however,the ‘‘Yes” responses were notably higher in Dún Laoghaire Rath-down than in the other local authorities.

Logistic regression was used to determine the likelihood that a‘‘Yes” response to a particular question was a function of age.‘‘Age” was recorded on the surveys in 10-year bands (e.g., 10–20 years of age; 20–30 years, etc.); however, for the purposes ofanalysing survey responses, age was treated as single numberfor each age group. The intercept in the logistic ‘‘model” wasinterpreted as the odds (or likelihood) corresponding to an agegroup. The slope then represented the multiplicative change inodds for successive increases in decades of age. The logisticregression from this research suggested that the likelihood of apositive response to the query about advertisements being aninfluence on waste-related behaviour declined by approximately15% [((1 � .847) � 100)] for each decade increase in age(p = 0.003). In other words, it is less likely that one will be influ-enced by advertisements regarding waste management as onegets older (resulting p-value is less than the 0.05 criterion). Thelogistic regression results suggested that the odds of a positive re-sponse to influence of political party on waste behaviour as afunction of age increased by approximately 46% for each decadeincrease in age (p < 0.001).

4.1.4. Food and garden waste managementFood and garden wastes are two important components of

BMW for which, until very recently, no formal collection servicehas been available in any of the four Dublin local authorities.Whereas a ‘‘green bin” home-address collection service for dryrecyclables (including paper and cardboard) has been in placeacross Dublin for several years, a ‘‘brown bin” collection servicefor food, garden wastes, food-soiled paper, etc. was begun on aphased basis only in late-2007. Home composting of BMW hasbeen, and still is, promoted as a viable alternative to residents inall Dublin local authorities. This survey attempted to determinehow residents managed food and garden wastes, one option beingby home composting. The results of a chi-square test of indepen-dence suggested a significant association between respondentswho said they make their own compost from food and gardenwastes, and their local authority of residence (v2(3) = 32.799,p < 0.001). In three of the four local authorities (Fingal, South Dub-lin, Dublin City), approximately 20% of respondents make compost;however, approximately 40% do so in Dún Laoghaire Rathdown(Fig. 3).

The results of a chi-square test of independence suggested a sig-nificant association between respondents’ local authority of resi-dence and the practice of putting food and garden waste in thegeneral rubbish bin (v2(3) = 34.255, p < 0.001). In Dublin City,South Dublin, and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown, more respondentsadmitted to putting food and garden waste in the general rubbishbin than not. However, in Fingal, more respondents managed foodand garden waste in other ways rather than putting it in the gen-eral rubbish bin. As compared to Dublin City and Dún LaoghaireRathdown, Fingal would be characterised by a much lower popula-tion density, suggesting that residents in Fingal could have otheroptions (e.g., pet feeding, garden amendment) for managing foodand garden wastes available to them. Although Dublin City andFingal local authorities have had a brown bin service in place ona phased basis since mid- to late-2007, approximately 70% of Dub-lin City respondents said they put their food and garden waste inthe general rubbish bin.

Fig. 4. Percentages of residential respondents in different dwelling types and theirself-ratings as managers of waste.

2002 M. Purcell, W.L. Magette / Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006

4.1.5. Organisation of waste servicesThe survey attempted to determine respondents’ attitudes to-

wards specific elements of the waste services they use. The resultsof a chi-square test of independence suggested a significant associ-ation between perceptions about how well Residual bin servicesare organised and local authority of residence (v2(9) = 90.637,p < 0.001); between perceptions about Dry Recyclables serviceorganisation and local authority of residence (v2(9) = 107.861,p < 0.001); and between perceptions regarding the Brown Bin ser-vice organisation and local authority (v2(9) = 44.139, p < 0.001).Regardless of local authority, residents tended to state ‘‘VeryOrganised” or ‘‘Organised” when describing their waste collectionservices. However, a very high percentage (72%) of Fingal residentsbelieves their services are ‘‘Very Organised”. The largest proportion(18%) of respondents stating ‘‘Disorganised” or ‘‘Very Disorganised”reside in Dublin City local authority. Almost all respondents (96%)in Dún Laoghaire Rathdown view their waste collection services as‘‘Disorganised” or ‘‘Very Disorganised”. This is probably due to thefact that the brown bin service from the local authority was notavailable during survey conduction in this area. However, thebrown bin service is available from private waste collectors inthe area. The majority of respondents in the other localities alsoviewed the brown bin collection as ‘‘Disorganised”, a reflectionperhaps on the relative novelty of this service compared to residualand dry recyclables services.

The results of a chi-square test of independence suggested a sig-nificant association between respondents’ perceptions of backyardcomposting organisation and their local authority of residence(v2(9) = 27.716, p < 0.001). In most local authorities, there ap-peared to be a linear increase in percentage responses from ‘‘VeryOrganised” to ‘‘Very Disorganised” (i.e., the majority view it as‘‘Very Disorganised”) when respondents rated how organised thehome composting schemes are. However, the percentages of re-sponses for each category of qualitative rating are roughly equalfrom Dún Laoghaire Rathdown residents. Also, when residents donot carry out backyard composting in their own premises, manytended to respond ‘‘Disorganised” or ‘‘Very Disorganised”.

4.1.6. Difficulties managing wasteThe survey of the residential sector sought to establish what (if

any) obstacles residents faced when managing household wastes.The results of a chi-square test of independence suggested a signif-icant association between respondents who said they had difficultymanaging their household waste and local authority in which theyresided (v2(3) = 20.287, p < 0.001). Approximately 60% of respon-dents said ‘‘Yes” (they do have trouble managing waste) in bothDublin City and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown. Conversely, approxi-mately 60% of respondents said they do not have trouble in theSouth Dublin local authority. The percentage of responses isroughly equal between ‘‘Yes” and ‘‘No” for Fingal local authorityrespondents.

Analyses were conducted to determine what type of wasterespondents have trouble managing in their local authorities. Theresults of a chi-square test of independence suggested a significantassociation between trouble managing waste (items) and localauthority of residence, as well as for the open-end coding (typeof waste) (v2(15) = 48.926, p < 0.001). Dublin City respondentswere dominated by residents with concerns about managingLarge/Heavy and Electrical Items, Plastics, Glass, and BMW. SouthDublin respondents were dominated by residents who have trou-ble managing Plastics and Large/Heavy and Electrical items. Fingalresidents have very high concerns about managing Plastics. DúnLaoghaire Rathdown respondents were dominated by residentshaving trouble managing Large/Heavy items, Plastics, and BMW(it should be noted that since the surveys were conducted, allclean, dry plastics are accepted in the green bin services provided

by all four local authorities. In addition, under the Waste Electricaland Electronic Equipment Directive, vendors of large items such aswashing machines and refrigerators must accept these discardeditems from consumers for recycling; in practice this often happensat the time a newly purchased product is delivered).

4.1.7. Payments for waste collectionSurvey respondents were asked for their views on charges as-

sessed for waste management. The results of a chi-square test ofindependence suggested a significant association between arespondent believing one should pay for waste management andthe occupation they hold (v2(10) = 47.285, p < 0.001). Occupationsin which the majority (>60%) of respondents believe individualsshould pay for waste management include ‘‘Professional” and‘‘Managerial/Technical”. Occupations in which the majority(>60%) of respondents believe individuals should not pay for thisservice include ‘‘Skilled Manual” and ‘‘Unskilled”. Respondentswere asked to explain their beliefs about who should pay for wastemanagement services. The majority of respondents based their be-liefs on the perception that government should pay for waste man-agement; the next most commonly given reason was a beliefamong respondents that they themselves should pay for waste ser-vices because it is their responsibility to do so.

4.1.8. Self rating as managers of wasteSurvey respondents were asked to rate themselves according to

their proficiency in managing household wastes. The results of achi-square test of independence suggested a significant associationbetween how respondents rated themselves as a manager of wasteand the type of dwelling in which they resided (v2(6) = 28.80,p < 0.001). Regardless of type of dwelling, few respondents ratedthemselves as poor managers of waste. Approximately 80% of ter-race and apartment dwellers rated themselves as ‘‘Good” manag-ers, while approximately 20% rated themselves as ‘‘Excellent”managers of waste. Approximately 60% of the detached andsemi-detached house dwellers rated themselves as ‘‘Good”, andapproximately 40% rated themselves as ‘‘Excellent” managers ofhousehold waste (Fig. 4).

M. Purcell, W.L. Magette / Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006 2003

4.1.9. Dwelling type and backyard composting activityThe results of a chi-square test of independence suggested a sig-

nificant association between respondents who practice backyardcomposting and the type of dwelling in which they reside(v2(3) = 62.03, p < 0.001). A total of 843 respondents answered thisquestion (Table 1). Almost no one residing in apartments/flatspractices composting, a predictable response given the physicalcharacteristics of these dwellings. Approximately 80% of respon-dents living in terraced housing said they do not compost, whileof those residing in detached and semi-detached houses, approxi-mately 60% of respondents said they do not compost householdwastes. Regardless of the dwelling type in which they live, roughly75% of respondents in the survey did not compost organic wastesat home.

An analysis was conducted to test for a relationship betweentype of dwelling and the reason that respondents gave for compos-ing activity. The results of a chi-square test of independence sug-gested a significant association between respondents’ dwellingtype and their reasons for composting or not composting(v2(15) = 177.20, p < 0.001). The majority of respondents citing a‘‘pro-active environmental action/attitude” reason for composting(such as environmental benefit, garden resource, less waste toresidual bin, feel better) as their live in semi-detached houses.More than 55% of Apartment and Flat dwellers responded thatthe ‘‘Facilities/Dwelling Situation” deters them from compostingat home, while only 8% of Terrace respondents cited ‘‘Facilities/Dwelling Situation” as a deterrent to backyard composting activity.

4.1.10. Future waste management issuesResidents in the survey were asked to identify (from a prescrip-

tive list) waste management issues they believed would be impor-tant to address in the future. The results of a chi-square test ofindependence suggested a significant association between arespondent’s education and whether they believed increasingbackyard composting to be an important issue for the future(v2(3) = 22.364, p < 0.001); education level was also strongly asso-ciated with respondents’ beliefs about reducing amount of waste tolandfill as a significant issue for the future (v2(3) = 8.952, p = 0.03).A significant association was also found between respondents’ le-vel of education and their views on increasing/improving recyclingfacilities as a significant issue in the future (v2(3) = 12.793,p = 0.005). The results of a chi-square test of independence alsosuggested a significant association between respondents’ level ofeducation and their views that reducing the amount of waste gen-erated is an important issue in the future (v2(3) = 25.841,p < 0.001) Approximately 20% of all residential respondents saidthey believed that ‘‘increasing backyard composting” is importantin the future; however, this response is closer to 40% for those witha 3rd level postgraduate degree. Approximately 20% of those with aJunior Certificate level of education said ‘‘reducing the amount ofwaste sent to landfill” is important in the future; approximately30% with a Leaving Certificate or 3rd level degree said ‘‘Yes”; andapproximately 40% with a 3rd level postgraduate degree said ‘‘Yes”to the statement that ‘‘reducing the amount of waste going to land-fill is an important future issue”. Approximately 60% of respon-

Table 1Backyard composting and dwelling type.

Compost No Yes Total

Terrace 207 65 272Detached house 60 33 93Semi-detached house 207 123 330Apartment/flat 142 6 148

Total 616 227 843

dents believed ‘‘increasing/improving recycling facilities” isimportant in the future; however, this response was closer to80% for those with a Junior Certificate level of education. The per-centage of those surveyed responding ‘‘reducing the amount ofwaste generated” as important in the future increased from 35%to 40% of those with a Junior Certificate or Leaving Certificate levelof education, to 55% to 60% of those possessing a 3rd level degreeor 3rd level postgraduate degree.

Respondents were asked to give their single most important fu-ture issue for waste management. The results of a chi-square testof independence suggested a significant association betweenrespondents’ level of education and the waste management issuethat they identified (from a prescribed list) as being the single mostimportant waste management issue for the future(v2(15) = 44.563, p < 0.001). The majority of respondents possess-ing a Junior Certificate level of education chose ‘‘brown bin” asthe most important issue. More than 50% of those having a LeavingCertificate level of education chose ‘‘increase/improve recyclingfacilities” as their most important issue, closely followed by ‘‘Bio-degradable Packaging”. ‘‘Reducing the amount of waste generated”was the future issue chosen as being most important by the major-ity of respondents with 3rd Level Degrees, while the majority ofrespondents having 3rd Level Postgraduate Degrees chose ‘‘reducelandfill” as the most important waste management issue in thefuture.

Analyses of responses about important waste management is-sues were also conducted on a local authority basis. The resultsof a chi-square test of independence suggested a significant associ-ation between the local authority in which respondents residedand their views on the importance of ‘‘increased composting” asan important issue in the future (v2(3) = 22.982, p < 0.001).Approximately 80% of respondents in Dublin City and South Dublinlocal authorities said ‘‘increasing composting” were an importantissue, while approximately 70% in Fingal and Dún Laoghaire Rath-down local authorities said ‘‘Yes” to this statement. The results of achi-square test of independence also suggested a significant asso-ciation between respondents’ local authority of residence and theirviews on ‘‘reducing the amount of waste going to landfill” as animportant issue in the future (v2(3) = 12.087, p = 0.007). Approxi-mately 80% of those surveyed in South Dublin said ‘‘reducing wastegoing to landfill” is an important future issue, while approximately60% of respondents in the other local authorities said ‘‘Yes” to thisstatement. The results of a chi-square test of independence furthersuggested a significant association between the local authority inwhich respondents resided and their views on the ‘‘need to in-crease/improve recycling facilities” as an important future issue(v2(3) = 17.808, p < 0.001). Approximately 70% of respondents inDublin City and approximately 60% of respondents in Fingalviewed the ‘‘need to increase/improve recycling facilities” as animportant future issue, while approximately 50% of respondentsin South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown local authoritiesdid so. The results of a chi-square test of independence also sug-gested a significant association between the local authority inwhich respondents resided and their views on ‘‘brown bin collec-tion” as an important future issue (v2(3) = 22.03, p < 0.001).Approximately 30% of respondents in Dublin City and Fingal localauthorities said the ‘‘brown bin collection” is an important futureissue, while approximately 45% or respondents in South Dublinand Dún Laoghaire Rathdown local authorities view ‘‘brown bincollection” to be an important future issue. Lastly, the results of achi-square test of independence suggested a significant associationbetween the local authority in which respondents resided and theirviews on ‘‘reducing the amount of waste generated” as an impor-tant waste issue in the future (v2(3) = 16.271, p < 0.001). Approxi-mately 40% of respondents in both Dublin City and Dún LaoghaireRathdown believed ‘‘reducing the amount of waste generated” to

2004 M. Purcell, W.L. Magette / Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006

be an important future issue, while approximately 55% of respon-dents in South Dublin and Fingal viewed waste reduction as impor-tant. These survey results indicated that a high percentage ofresidents in all four local authorities have an understanding ofwaste management issues, and of the need to improve waste man-agement in the future.

From the respondents’ collective views on future waste man-agement issues of importance it was possible to analyse which is-sue, from the prescribed list of issues, they believed to be mostimportant. As a group, the largest number of respondents regarded‘‘reducing the amount of waste generated” to be a more importantissue than any other (this has been a message communicated bythe Irish government in its many policy documents and campaignspromoting improved waste management). Nevertheless, viewsabout the importance of different waste issues varied by localauthority. For example, while ‘‘reducing the amount of waste gen-erated” was cited more often than any other as an important issueby the entire group of residents surveyed, the percentages ofrespondents expressing this view in each local authority rangedfrom 15% to 20% to 34% and 36% in Dún Laoghaire Rathdown, Dub-lin City, Fingal and South Dublin, respectively.

4.1.11. Waste management service and influencesThe survey asked respondents what influences them most with

regard to waste management. Respondents were given a pre-scribed list of answers from which to choose. In the analysis ofresponses, the type of waste management collection service usedby respondents was combined with the influences respondents ci-ted as affecting their waste management behaviour to betterunderstand the factors that combine to influence waste practice.The results of a chi-square test of independence suggested that‘‘Advertising” was significantly associated as an influence only bythose who claimed that ‘‘personal disposal” was their means ofwaste management (v2(1) = 5.11, p = 0.024). This is due to themajority of respondents who said ‘‘No” to advertising being aninfluence on them and either ‘‘No” (approximately 65%) or ‘‘Yes”(35%) to ‘‘personal disposal” as a source of waste collection. The re-sults of a chi-square test of independence suggested a significantassociation between respondents’ choice that ‘‘educational pro-grammes” influence them and the use of local authority collectionservices (v2(1) = 6.86, p = 0.009) and use of private waste collection(v2(1) = 8.254, p = 0.004). The majority of respondents said ‘‘Yes” tousing a waste collecting service from a local authority and alsoagreed that educational programmes are an influence with regardto household waste management. The majority of respondents said‘‘No” to using waste collection services provided by a private oper-ator, and also said ‘‘No” to educational programmes being an influ-ence on their personal waste management practices.

The results of a chi-square test of independence suggested a sig-nificant association between cost as an influence on waste man-agement and use of both local authority collection services(v2(1) = 31.531, p < 0.001) and private waste collection services(v2(1) = 25.309, p < 0.001). The majority of respondents stated thatcost is not an influence on waste management (14% of respondentsusing local authority collection services stated cost as an influ-ence). Approximately one-third (32%) of respondents using privatewaste collection services said that cost was an influence on theirwaste management activities. Therefore the majority of respon-dents indicated that cost was not an influence and also the major-ity of respondents do not use private collection services.

4.2. Discussion

The challenge to reduce household waste has become a priorityfor policy makers in Ireland (Fahy and Davies, 2007) and in order toachieve this, knowledge of people’s attitudes and preferences is

important if policy changes are to be successful. However, suchan understanding is also important on a tactical basis as localauthorities strive to better manage all aspects of their waste man-agement systems.

Overall the majority of respondents were satisfied with theirwaste collection service. However, this research suggests thereare many opportunities for improvement in the satisfaction levelof those living in detached houses, in particular. This could bedue the fact that most detached houses have a garden and there-fore generate larger amounts of garden waste; also detachedhouses may have larger numbers of people living in them andtherefore generate larger quantities of waste. In addition, relativeto apartment dwellers that may not have high expectations ofwaste services because their stay may be short-term, people in de-tached houses may have very high expectations of waste services.Martin et al. (2006) highlight that terraced housing militatesagainst a high recycling rate. At the time the surveys were con-ducted (2008) Fingal and Dublin City local authorities had a brownbin collection service (for household organic wastes) in place andwere extending this service. The goal was to have 80,000 brownbins in operation in Fingal and approximately 70,000 in Dublin Cityby December 2008 (Dublinwaste.ie, 2008). The expansion of thebrown bin service should help improve respondents’ satisfactionwith the waste service in these two local authorities, particularlyamong those living in detached housing, who have gardens andwho showed level of dissatisfaction with their waste service.

Approaches to managing food and garden waste varied amonglocal authorities. Approximately 20% of respondents in Dublin Cityand South Dublin local authorities claimed to compost their foodand garden waste. This proportion was slightly higher in Fingal(�25%) and reached more than 40% in Dún Laoghaire Rathdown lo-cal authority. The majority of Dublin City respondents said theydisposed of food and garden waste in the residual bin (black bin),as did the majority of South Dublin respondents. About 44% of Fin-gal respondents (lowest proportion of respondents in the four localauthorities) said they disposed of the food and garden waste in theresidual bin; in contrast, 34% of Fingal respondents said they putfood and garden waste in the brown bin or fed it to animals. InDún Laoghaire Rathdown, where the local authority did not admin-ister a brown bin service for organics at the time surveys were con-ducted, 55% of respondents said they disposed of food and gardenwaste in the residual bin. Although high, this response rate waslower than that of the Dublin City respondents (70%) who did havea brown bin service in place (albeit with incomplete coverage). Ahigher number of the Dún Laoghaire Rathdown respondents re-ported composting their food and garden waste than did DublinCity respondents. Approximately 5% of Dún Laoghaire Rathdownrespondents also said they put food and garden waste in the brownbin (using a private service) or fed it to animals (pets). Privatewaste collection services in the entire Dublin region are beginningto increase, however the way by which private operations and localauthority operations are managed in this has been challenged inIreland’s High Court (Irish Courts Service, 2008). In Dún LaoghaireRathdown, the county manager has mooted the idea of privatisingall waste services (O’Brien, 2008).

‘‘Reducing the amount of waste generated” is the most impor-tant issue facing Ireland in the future according to survey respon-dents. However, at best only 40% of respondents believe it isimportant to ‘‘reduce the amount of waste going to landfill”. Gen-erally, respondents did not grasp the idea of diverting waste andthe importance of brown bins to the success of waste managementstrategies, indicating that they don’t understand the concept ofdiverting BMW. This suggests the need for a more focused educa-tional programme regarding the BMW management; according tosurvey results, such a programme would be influential in the Dub-lin region.

M. Purcell, W.L. Magette / Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006 2005

At least 40% of respondents (in South Dublin) to as many as 60%(in Dún Laoghaire Rathdown) reported having difficulty managingsome type of waste. Respondents in both local authorities identi-fied ‘‘large/heavy” and ‘‘electrical” waste as the items most difficultto manage. In Fingal, 51% of respondents said they have troublemanaging some type of waste, with the majority of respondentshaving trouble managing plastics. In Dublin City, 58% of respon-dents said they had trouble managing waste, with the majorityof respondents identifying ‘‘large/heavy” items and ‘‘electrical”waste as the most troublesome. Many of the respondents in DublinCity were living in apartments and did not have access to a car; orthey lived in multi-story complexes, for which they reported diffi-culty in moving heavy items without the aid of a lift. It is interest-ing to note that even though the majority of respondents said theywere satisfied with their waste services, a large percentage also re-ported having trouble managing some type of waste.

On a local authority scale, the factor that was reported to influ-ence waste practices most were found to be advertisements (e.g.,public service announcements, television and print items, etc.)(Dublin City, South Dublin and Fingal). Most respondents in DúnLaoghaire Rathdown local authority said educational programmeswere an influence on their waste management practices. Respon-dents in all local authorities rated political party influence as theleast influential factor affecting their waste management practice.Therefore, waste programs promoted through advertisements andeducation should positively influence a large number of people inthe Dublin region with regard to waste practices. In terms ofrespondent’s age profile and waste practice influences, advertise-ments and educational programmes was found to influence youn-ger age groups more than older age groups, while political partyinfluence (though not a particularly strong motivator) was gradedbetter for older age groups. Community influence and legislation/regulations also had higher influence on the respondents fromyounger age groups. Cost (although not statistically significant)was found to influence older age groups more than the youngerage groups about waste practice. This might have been due tothe fact that older people (i.e., adults) in the survey were the‘‘bill-payers”, or because younger respondents were more comfort-able with paying for environmental services. Martin et al. (2006)found a strong objection to householders being charged for themanagement of all wastes, but fewer objections to the chargingof just non-recyclables. These results suggest waste managementcampaigns would be more successful when designed for a particu-lar target audience, incorporating elements appropriate to eachaudience.

Important future issues according to education level included‘‘reduce the amount of waste generated” (particularly amongthe highest level of education). ‘‘Reduce the amount of waste gen-erated” is near the top of preferred waste management strategiesaccording to the waste hierarchy, and since it was quoted asbeing an important issue for the higher levels of education, itcould be argued that the concept of waste hierarchy has beenbetter grasped by the more highly educated people while beingless appreciated by those having lower levels of education. Like-wise, although the majority of respondents were satisfied withtheir waste service, ‘‘increase and improve recycling facilities”was a consistently cited future waste issue by respondents inall educational levels, highlighting peoples’ desire to improvethe overall management of waste (particularly through recycling)and an acknowledgement that better facilities were necessary toaccomplish this. ‘‘Reduce waste going to landfill” was reportedas a future issue least among respondents possessing the lowerlevels of education. Belton et al. (1994) found non-recyclers tobe younger people in lower socio-economic groups. Williamsand Kelly (2003) found the 25–44 age groups to be lowest recy-clers. People living in rented accommodation were also found to

be lowest recyclers (DEFRA, 2002). However, Mc Donald and Ball(1998) found no difference in recycling behaviour to occur amongrespondents of different ages or socio-economic status, or house-hold size. The research reported here found that an increasein household size was a significant predictor for the increase inbackyard composting activity.

Important future waste management issues on a local authorityscale varied among respondents. Importance of the brown bin inthe future was regarded highest among respondents in South Dub-lin and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown local authorities (the two localauthorities without this service at the time of the survey). How-ever, even in these authorities, it is evident from respondents’ an-swers to other survey questions that people do not make theassociation between brown bins, waste diversion from landfill,and BMW.

Reported composting activity for respondents was greateramong those living in semi-detached and detached houses (59%and 55% respectively) and lowest for respondents residing in ter-raced housing and apartments/flats (24% and 4% respectively). Thisis supported by other research showing that ‘‘full” (i.e., deligent)recyclers are more inclined to live in semi-detached and detachedhousing (Martin et al., 2006). Reasons given for composting activity(or lack of it) were mainly ‘‘lifestyle deter” (time, inconvenience)reasons and ‘‘pro-active action/attitude” for residents in semi-de-tached and detached housing, respectively. Lifestyle factors werealso an important reason for the lack of composting for respon-dents in terraced housing, and, as might be expected, ‘‘facilitiesdeterring composting activity” was an important obstacle for thoseliving in apartments/flats. Perrin and Barton (2001) also found thatstorage/handling problems, along with inconvenience/lack of time,to be among the most common reasons for people not recycling.The research reported here also found that ‘‘too much effort” wasan important reason for the lack of composting activity amongrespondents. ‘‘Inconvenience” was also found as a reason for notcomposting in research by Coggins (1994). Most negative re-sponses to composting in research by Price (2001) were cited asbeing lack of knowledge/awareness or the perception that toomuch effort was required. In Dublin, respondents in terracedhouses indicated that aesthetic considerations such as smell, ver-min and rats deterred their composting activity, while respondentsresiding in apartments/flats said that facilities-related constraints(space, renting house) were a reason for not composting. Insemi-detached and detached housing most respondents said rea-sons for composting were either positive actions or pro-activeenvironmental actions. Clearly many issues must be addressed ifhome composting is to gain widespread implementation in theDublin region, even among those that have the space to do so. Itcould be argued that the relatively new brown bin service (whichaccepts garden waste) across the region might actually discouragehome composting.

5. Conclusion

This research proved the hypothesis that attitudes held by theresidential sector towards waste management vary spatially with-in the Dublin region, although some general attitudes are commonacross the region. It is especially noteworthy that residentialrespondents across the region apparently do not associate theuse of brown bins with the practice of BMW management anddiverting waste from landfill. The statistical analyses of survey re-sponses also proved that waste behaviours are spatially variable.

By logical extension of the hypothesis, waste management ini-tiatives designed for one area of the region (or, indeed, for the re-gion as a whole) could ignore the needs of other areas in theregion. The survey responses indicated that targeted intervention

2006 M. Purcell, W.L. Magette / Waste Management 30 (2010) 1997–2006

strategies designed for specific geographic areas are essential toimproving diversion rates of BMW from landfill, a requirementof the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC.

The research generated essential baseline information regard-ing attitudes, behaviour and perceptions for today’s population inthe Dublin region. ‘‘The survey results indicate a diverse popula-tion in terms of attitudes and behaviours towards waste manage-ment in the Dublin region. However, there are some similaritiesoccurring within the region. The majority of households use localauthority, rather than private contractors. The majority of resi-dents, regardless of the local authority in which they live, were sat-isfied with their waste management service. Yet many respondentsreported difficulty managing waste. ‘‘Reducing the quantity ofwaste generated” was regarded the most important future issuefacing residents. Many responses (including waste service satisfac-tion, waste management influences) were also significantly relatedto the respondents’ personal characteristics. The majority ofrespondents based their beliefs on the perception that governmentshould pay for waste management services. Regardless of thedwelling type in which they live, the majority of respondents inthe survey did not compost organic wastes at home. Almost noone residing in apartments/flats practices composting, while thoseresiding in detached and semi-detached houses, a larger number ofrespondents said they compost household wastes. Respondents interraced houses indicated that aesthetic considerations such assmell, vermin and rats deterred their composting activity, whilerespondents residing in apartments/flats said that facilities-relatedconstraints (space, renting house) were a reason for not compost-ing”. This information can be utilised to formulate new waste man-agement strategies and modify existing ones.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Environmental ProtectionAgency ERTDI Programme and the National Development Plan un-der project 2005-PHD5-GIS-8. The authors would like to thank theanonymous respondents that gave their time to answer thesurveys.

References

Agresti, A., 1996. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley and Sons,New York.

Barr, S., 2003. Strategies for sustainability: citizens and responsible environmentalbehaviour. Area 35 (3), 227–240.

Belton, V., Crowe, D.V., Matthews, R., Scott, S., 1994. A survey of public attitudes torecycling in Glasgow. Waste Management 12 (4), 351–367.

Bennett, C., 1975. Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension, March/April 7–12.Clarke, M.J., Maantay, J.A., 2006. Optimizing recycling in all of New York City’s

neighbourhoods: using GIS to develop the REAP index for improved recyclingeducation, awareness, and participation. Resources Conservation and Recycling46 (2), 128–148.

Coakley, T., Cunningham, D., 2004. Assessment and development of a wasteprevention framework for Ireland (2001-WM-DS-1) synthesis report.Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle, Co., Wexford.

Coggins, C., 1994. Who is the recycler? Journal of Waste Management Resource andRecovery 1 (2), 69–75.

CSO, 2008. Beyond 2020 report folders. Central Statistics Office, Ireland. Availablefrom: <http://beyond2020.cso.ie/census/ReportFolders/ReportFolders.aspx>(accessed July 2009).

Curran, A., Williams, I.D., Heaven, S., 2006. Management of household bulky wastein England. Resources Conservation and Recycling 51 (1), 78–92.

Davies, A.R., 1999. Sustainable communities: end of project report. Committee forInterdisplinary Environmental Studies CIES, University of Cambridge, UK.

De Oliveria Simonetto, E., Borenstein, D., 2007. A decision support system for theoperational planning of solid waste collection. Waste Management 27 (10),1286–1297.

DEFRA, 2002. Survey of public attitudes to quality of life and the environment 2001.Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Available from:<www.data-archive.ac.uk/doc/4741/mrdoc/pdf/4741userguide2.pdf> (accessedJuly 2009).

DublinWaste.ie, 2008. Dublin Local Authorities in association with RPS, Dublin,Ireland. Available from: <www.dublinwaste.ie> (accessed July 2009).

Emery, A.D., Griffiths, A.J., Williams, K.P., 2003. An in depth study of the effects ofsocio-economic conditions on household waste recycling practices. WasteManagement and Research 21 (3), 180–190.

EPA, 2006. Environmental attitudes and behaviour: values, actions and wastemanagement. Synthesis report. Environmental RTDI Programme 2000–2006.Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle Estate, Wexford, Ireland. p.27.

EPA, 2008. Organic Waste Management in Apartments, Final Report. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Johnstown Castle Estate, Wexford, Ireland. p. 68.

EPA, 2009. National Waste Report 2007. Environmental Protection Agency,Johnstown Castle Estate, Wexford, Ireland. p. 59.

Fahy, F., Davies, A., 2007. Home improvements: household waste minimization andaction research. Resources Conservation and Recycling 52 (1), 13–27.

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

Harder, G., Knox, L., 1992. Implementing variable trash collection rates,Pennsylvania programs. Biocycle April 66, 66–69.

Huang, P., Zhang, X., Deng, X., 2006. Survey and analysis of public environmentalawareness and performance in Ningbo China: a case study on householdelectrical and electronic equipment. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (18),1635–1643.

Irish Courts Service, 2008. Nurendale Ltd. T/A Panda Waste Services v Dublin CityCouncil and Others (2008/420JR) 14 April 2008. Available from:<www.courts.ie> (accessed July 2009).

Lansana, F.M., 1992. Distinguishing potential recyclers from nonrecyclers: a basisfor developing recycling strategies. Journal of Environmental Education 23 (2),16–23.

Lyle, D., Bailie, J., Corrigan, A., Reid, D., 2004. Race against Waste. Institute ofAdvertising Practitioners in Ireland. Available from: <http://www.iapiadvertisingeffectiveness.ie/cases/cases04/waste.pdf> (accessed July2009).

Martin, M., William, I.D., Clarke, M., 2006. Social, cultural and structural influenceson household waste recycling. Resources Conservation and Recycling 48 (4),357–395.

Mc Donald, S., Ball, R., 1998. Public participation in plastics recycling schemes.Resources Conservation and Recycling 22 (3–4), 123–141.

Morrissey, A.J., Phillips, P.S., 2007. Biodegradable municipal waste (BMW)management strategy in Ireland: a comparison with some key issues in theBMW strategy being adopted in England. Resources Conservation and Recycling49 (4), 353–371.

Noehammer, H.C., Byer, P.H., 1997. Effect of design variables on participation inresidential curbside recycling programs. Waste Management and Research 15(4), 407–427.

O’Brien, T., 2008. Waste collectors work just 3½-hour day, says council. The IrishTimes. Friday, 3 October 2008.

Ott, R.L., Longnecker, M.T., 2004. A First Course in Statistical Methods. Brooks/Cole,Thomson Learning.

Perrin, D., Barton, J., 2001. Issues associated with transforming household attitudesand opinions into materials recovery: a review of two kerbside recyclingschemes. Resources Conservation and Recycling 33 (1), 62–74.

Platt, B., Docherty, C., Broughton, A.C., Morris, D., 1991. Beyond 40 percent: recordsetting recycling and composting programs. Institute for Local Self Reliance(ILSR), Washington, DC, USA.

Price, J.L., 2001. The landfill directive and the challenge ahead: demands andpressures on the UK householder. Resources Conservation and Recycling 32(3–4), 333–348.

Purcell, M., 2009. A New Approach to the Design of Waste Management Systems forBiodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW). PhD Dissertation, School ofArchitecture, Landscape and Civil Engineering, University College Dublin,Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.

Purcell, M., Magette, W.L., 2009. The prediction of household and commercial BMWgeneration according to socio-economic and other factors for the Dublin region.Waste Management 29 (4), 1237–1250.

SPSS, 2006. SPSS for Windows, Rel.14.0 Statistical Package for Social Sciences. SPSS,Inc., Chicago.

Steel, B., 1995. Thinking globally and acting locally. Environmental attitudes,behaviour and activism. Journal of Environmental Management 47 (1), 27–36.

Survey Monkey, 2008. Surveymonkey.com Oregon, USA. <www.surveymonkey.com/> (accessed July 2009).

Vidanaarachchi, C.K., Yuen, S.T.S., Pilapitiya, S., 2006. Municipal solid wastemanagement in the southern province of Sri Lanka; problems, issues andchallenges. Waste Management 26 (8), 920–930.

Williams, I.D., Kelly, J., 2003. Green waste collections and public recycling behaviourin the Borough of Wyre, England. Resources Conservation and Recycling 38 (2),139–159.

Wilson, C.D.H., Williams, I.D., 2007. Kerbside collection: a study from the north–west of England. Resources Conservation and Recycling 52 (2), 381–394.

Zhuang, Y., Wu, S.W., Wang, Y.L., Wu, W.X., Chen, Y.X., 2008. Source separation ofhousehold waste: a case study in china. Waste Management 28 (10), 2022–2030.