Mind the gap! Householder attitudes and actions towards waste in Ireland

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 08 November 2014, At: 23:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Irish GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rigy20

Mind the gap! Householder attitudes and actions towardswaste in IrelandAnna Davies a , Frances Fahy b & David Taylor aa Department of Geography, School of Natural Sciences , Trinity College Dublin ,b Department of Geography , National University of Ireland , GalwayPublished online: 26 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Anna Davies , Frances Fahy & David Taylor (2005) Mind the gap! Householder attitudes and actions towardswaste in Ireland, Irish Geography, 38:2, 151-168, DOI: 10.1080/00750770509555856

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00750770509555856

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyoneis expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rigy20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00750770509555856

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00750770509555856

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Mind the gap! Householder attitudes and actions towardswaste in Ireland

Anna Davies1, Frances Fahy2 and David Taylor1

1 Department of Geography, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin2 Department of Geography, National University of Ireland, Galway

ABSTRACTThe growing volume of domestic waste is a particularly visible manifestation ofthe environmental problems caused by high levels of economic growth and con-sumption in Ireland, while the effective management of waste is becoming pro-gressively problematic for policy-makers and householders alike. Surveys ofpublic opinion demonstrate a gap between concern for the environment andactions to protect it. However, there has been little consideration of public viewsof, and behaviour in relation to, the waste sector. An in-depth study of publicactions and attitudes towards waste in Ireland was conducted in response to thispaucity of information. The research revealed a complex landscape of attitude-action relationships influenced by factors ranging from personal characteristicsto social and institutional contexts. Attention to this complexity by policy mak-ers in Ireland will be essential if the management of household waste is to beimproved.

Key index words: Ireland, local authorities, qualitative research, wastemanagement.

Introduction

The sheer volumes produced and the limited facilities for disposal and recycling, togetherwith increasing pressure from the EU to meet stringent minimisation targets, has raised theprofile of waste management in Ireland (Davies, 2003). Surveys of public opinion identify apopulation concerned about the quality of the environment, while at the same time revealinglow levels of activity directed towards environmental protection or enhancement (see DruryResearch, 2000; 2003). These surveys have included waste related indicators, such as thevolume of recyclates being collected, but there has been no in-depth analysis of attitudes andbehaviour in relation to waste management. This paper describes the attitude-actionlandscape of household waste management in Ireland through the presentation of bothquantitative and qualitative information generated from an in-depth study of public actionsand attitudes towards waste in Ireland1. The study involved a questionnaire survey to generatequantitative baseline information regarding attitudes and behaviour with respect toenvironmental and waste issues. The questionnaire structure was informed by precedingsurveys of environmental attitudes conducted in Europe (Steel, 1996: Blake and Carter, 1997;Davies, 1999; Barr, 2002). Qualitative interviews were then used to explore further thereasons for householders' reported waste management practices and to establish whatmechanisms might encourage them to both reduce their waste production and to manage theremaining waste more sustainably.

Whilst it is not necessary to recount the recent history of waste management in Irelandas this has been discussed extensively elsewhere (for example see, Boyle, 2002; Davies,2003; Fahy, 2003), it is useful to recap the main dimensions of concern for household waste

Irish Geography, Volume 38(2), 2005,151-168.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

152 Davies, Fahy and Taylor

management. From a logistical perspective, local authorities are responsible for thecollection, management and disposal of household waste either by establishing contracts withcompanies to provide the required services or by providing those services themselves.Increasingly, private companies are taking the leading role in providing waste services withthe EPA (2004) estimating that over 60 percent of waste is now dealt with by this sector.Information about household waste arisings is generally lumped together with commercialmaterials under the term municipal waste and there has been an annual increase of around 10percent in this sector between 1990 and 2002, primarily due to economic, population andsocial changes (EPA, 2002). However the most recent available data specifically onhousehold waste established that national household waste generation is more than 1.5million tonnes per annum, an increase of 80 percent from 1998 levels (around 398 kg perperson per annum) of which only 13 percent is recovered (EPA, 2004). While not the onlysector experiencing increasing waste production, the high level and continuing upward trendin volumes of household waste being created make it a legitimate area of concern forgovernment and the public alike. In particular, the ambitious target of achieving 50 percentrecovery of household waste by 2013 (EPA, 2004) remains a distant goal. It is likely thatpositive attitudes through the development of environmental citizenship and proactiveparticipative action towards waste management by householders - that is to reduce, recycleand re-use waste materials - will be necessary for these targets to be met (Barr, 2002; Dobsonand Bell, 2005). However before any attempt can be made to foster such positive andparticipative behaviour it is important to understand why people behave the way they do inrelation to household waste and to examine what influence their attitudes have on thosebehaviours. There is a considerable body of literature on the examination of environmentalattitudes and behaviour emanating from a range of disciplinary perspectives from psychologythrough geography to planning. It is not the aim of this paper to review this long and broadlineage of behavioural studies or critique the methodologies adopted as Barr (2002) more thanadequately completes this task. Suffice to say that a multifacteted methodology was adoptedin order to both identify patterns and trends in large sample populations and to facilitate morein-depth analysis of the rich dataset produced.

The first section of this paper briefly reviews the methodological framework for thestudy and this is followed by the presentation of key findings from the quantitative part of theresearch. Information from the interviews with householders is used in this section to clarifyand elaborate on some of the patterns in attitudes and actions that emerge from thequestionnaire results., The third part of the paper examines the factors that influence theconstruction and reconstruction of attitudes and the [in]actions of householders in relation towaste. It also considers a range of mechanisms proposed by interviewees for positivelychanging both attitudes and actions towards waste. Finally the future management ofhousehold waste and the role of householders in that management is discussed and a proposalfor creating a virtuous circle of household waste management behaviour outlined.2

Methodological framework

Prior to the main research project a desktop survey examined the different wastemanagement strategies employed by local authorities across Ireland and identified four localauthority areas as case studies for more detailed analysis: Galway, Kerry and Fingal CountyCouncils and Galway City Council3 (Figure 1). These local authority areas were selected inorder to examine a variety of locations across Ireland that exhibit contrasting social,economic and environmental conditions. A questionnaire-based survey was then conducted in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Householder attitudes and actions towards waste 153

F1NGAL COUNTY

GAIWAYCTTY

GALWAY COUNTY

KERRY COUNTY

Figure 1: Case study locations in Ireland.Boundaries describe the Waste Management

Planning Regions in Ireland (see Fahy, 2003).Note that Galway county and city are part of

the Connaught region, Kerry is part of theLimerick/Clare/Kerry region andFingal is

part of the North East region.

the case study locations. In total, 1500householders completed the questionnaire, 500each in Kerry and Fingal, 250 in the Galway Cityregion and 250 in county Galway. A key pointhere is that, while not statistically representative,respondents reflected the diversity of thepopulation in the local authority areas in terms ofgender, age, education and housing tenure (Table1). The questionnaire revealed interesting andsometimes ambiguous statements about the viewsof householders and their experiences of wastemanagement. The reasoning behind some of theresults of the questionnaire survey was exploredthrough follow-up interviews. Interviewees wereselected from the pool of questionnairerespondents who indicated that they would bewilling to participate in further research. A total of60 semi-structured interviews were conducted:twenty in Fingal, twenty in Kerry, and ten in eachof Galway City and Galway County Councils.Illustrative quotations from the interviews areused in this paper to enrich the analysis and toindicate, in the words of interviewees,explanations for their attitudes and actions4.

Establishing attitudes and actions towards waste management

The research into attitudes and actions towards waste management produced a wealth ofinteresting data and raised many questions worthy of further investigation. In this paper onlythe most prominent features of the research findings are elucidated. The first point of note isthat the questionnaire revealed high levels of concern for the state of the environment, whichconcurs with the findings of earlier environmental attitudes studies conducted in Ireland (seeDrury, 2000; 2003). Eighty-six percent of the respondents in the three case study areas saidthey were either 'concerned' or 'very concerned' about the condition of the environment withlittle variation across the case study areas. Levels of concern about waste management weresimilarly high, with over 90 percent of respondents stating that there were waste problems inIreland. A much lower level of agreement was evident, however, when it came to identifyingthe most pressing waste management problems and how these problems might best beaddressed at the level of the household. While across the three case study areas the two wastemanagement issues of greatest concern were the lack of available landfill sites and illegaldumping (being cited by, respectively, 20 percent and 17 percent of respondents) a range ofother problems such as weak regulation and enforcement, disinterested publics, poorrecycling facilities and the preponderance of littering were also identified. The responses alsoexhibited spatial variations both across and within case study areas. For example, in Galway26 percent of the respondents from Ballinasloe, situated 2Km away from the only landfill sitein the local authority area, stated that the lack of available landfill was Ireland's biggest wasteproblem, compared with an average of 17 percent of respondents from Galway as a whole and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 1: Summary information

GenderMaleFemale

Age18-2930-3940-4950-5960-6970+

Highest level of educationNo formal educationVocational certificateJunior certificateLeaving certificateThird level education

Dwelling typeDetachedSemi-detachedTownhouse/terracedApartment

Ownership of dwellingPrivate ownershipSocial/council housingPrivately rented

OccupationProfessionalService industryHome makerManagerial/technicalGovernmentStudentRetiredUnemployedOther

on the respondents

All study areas

[T=1500]

3763

25252312

96

107

123041

2951155

711415

181823

74

101136

to the questionnaire.

Fingal

[T=500]

3961

2326261384

94

143043

1765152

80128

191825

759837

Galway

[T=500]

3664

27232012108

999

3340

34411311

' 6713 '19

181320

63

151627

Kerry

[T=500]

3565

2326241296

136

122841

3645172

661618

172425

737944

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


20 percent of all responses from all case study areas. Such variations underline the crucialimportance of considering scale in quantitative data analysis as clearly differences of opinionwithin populations can be either revealed or concealed depending on the level at whichanalysis takes place. It also highlights the significance of lived experience in the constructionof views on waste management problems and solutions. It is hardly surprising that thosepeople living closest to a large landfill might feel most strongly about associated wastemanagement problems as it is the facility that they are most familiar with. A number ofinterviewees from Ballinasloe felt that the landfill had been significantly upgraded in recentyears and that negative impacts from the site had been reduced:

The local dump in the area is great and very professionally run and looks really welland you get great service at it. Just recently there are plans to put a dump out nearmy parents home in New Inn and I was just saying to my mum that if it's anythinglike the one in Ballinasloe it will be a credit to the place. The [landfill site at]Ballinasloe is really well run and looks very well. (GCOI02: 11)

It should be noted that just because householders in Ballinasloe particularly identified alack of landfill as the major problem for Ireland and some felt that procedures of landfillmanagement had improved does not mean that all residents would like to see the landfill intheir backyard extended. Many felt that they had already carried the burden of a locallyunwanted land use and that it was the turn of other areas to participate in burden sharing:

Ballinasloe has had it long enough. It was the county dump and then the dump forthe whole region. That is very unfair and a lot of people objected to it they are com-ing across their houses with big heavy trucks and the walls are just not able to takeit. I was involved in the protest to stop it. (GCOI05 - 7,8)

Evidence for the existence of counter-intuitive or at least ambiguous findings appears inrelation to proposed solutions to the waste management challenges described above. Theranking of solutions to waste management problems remained the same across all three casestudy areas (recycling facilities, biodegradable packaging, incineration, more composting,improve landfill practices, reduce reliance on landfill). Fifty-two percent of all respondentsselected recycling facilities as the key to solving waste problems, more than double thenumber choosing biodegradable packaging (the next most popular choice). Thus, while therewas general agreement amongst the respondents about which policy options were preferredmechanisms for solving waste problems, two key differences stand out. Fewer Galwayrespondents prioritised recycling facilities (46%) when compared to Fingal (55%) and Kerry(54%) and more respondents in Galway supported the introduction of incinerators (15%) thaneither of the other two locations (Fingal 10%, Kerry 8%). A contributory factor for therelatively lower support for recycling facilities in Galway may have been because of thesignificant improvement in recycling collections both door-to-door and through recyclingcentres in the area prior to the research project. More difficult to explain is the higher supportfor incineration in Galway compared with the other locations, particularly because a sitewithin the city of Galway had been identified as the location for an incinerator, and this hadgenerated considerable controversy in the city and surrounding areas (Davies, 2003; 2005).An explanation for the relatively higher support could be that the public debate aboutincineration introduced more people in Galway to the process than in either Fingal or Kerryand that this generated support amongst a greater proportion (albeit still overall a smallpercentage) of the population than in areas where the possibility of an incinerator has not beenmooted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


The age and gender of respondents also appeared to influence views and across all threecase study areas a similar pattern emerged that male and older respondents were morepredisposed towards incineration as a potential solution to Ireland's waste problems. Thirtypercent of all respondents in the 70+ age category ranked the introduction of incineration astheir highest priority, while only five percent of respondents in the 18-29 year-old age groupprioritised this approach (favouring increased recycling facilities instead). Male respondentswere more likely to opt for incineration than women, who prioritised the development ofmore biodegradable packaging. In each case study area the proportion of men placingincineration as their top priority was about twice that of women. Such findings may beexplained by generational and gender differences in evaluation of risks related totechnological processes such as incineration. In particular, there is an increasing body of workthat is engaging with gender differences in relation to the perception of risk (see Gustafsen,1998), which has tended to conclude that women typically report higher levels of concernabout environmental and technological hazards compared to men (Pidgeon, Henwood andIrwin, 2005). However, while the questionnaire surveys appeared to reveal the existence ofage and gender differences the results of the survey provided little explanation for theexistence of these differences. This is particularly limiting when apparently counter-intuitiveviews, such as those of the Galway residents about incineration described above, areexpressed. The questionnaire results provided few insights into how and why attitudes areconstructed or why certain populations have divergent attitudes. The qualitative interviewsthat were conducted following the questionnaire survey presented an opportunity to explorethese issues in more depth. The views expressed in interviews about incineration providedsome clues as to why surprising or counter-intuitive results might have been produced in thequestionnaire survey. On one level the interviews confirmed questionnaire findings that whilea few householders were highly supportive of incineration, many others were not. The deeperdiscussions that followed suggest that many interviewees were uncomfortable forming a fixedopinion on the incineration of waste, either because they did not feel they had receivedsufficient information on the technology or because they were unable to come to a conclusiongiven the contradictory information provided. To compound matters, several intervieweeswere sceptical of the information they had received, feeling that the sources of thatinformation had a vested interest in either promoting or rejecting incineration:

Nobody really wants an incinerator on their doorstep. I have seen one or two pro-grammes on Prime Time and there are differing environmental studies done as to -theeffects and I don't think people are really one-hundred percent sure whether theseincinerators are going to have health consequences for the local population, partic-ularly when they are burning, let's say, animal carcasses, and substances that wouldproduce chemicals. (FI09:31)

Several of those interviewed felt that the introduction of incineration for household wastein Ireland was inevitable, although far more thought that the argument for incineration had notbeen clearly made. A commonly expressed concern was that the introduction and use ofincineration could deflect attention away from recycling initiatives. Even those intervieweeswho were supportive of incineration were keen to see its introduction only alongside othermethods for managing waste. At the same time, many of the interviewees recognised that theirviews on incineration would be influenced by their proximity to the site of any proposeddevelopment. This is an important admission with significant methodological implications:while interviews and questionnaires provide means of obtaining the views of respondentstowards hypothetical developments, such views may well differ once hypothetical scenariosbecome concrete proposals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


As well as investigating attitudes towards waste issues the survey also questionedrespondents about their behaviour in the waste management field. Initially householders wereasked to rate their actions in relation to waste management as 'excellent', 'good', 'poor' or'very poor'. This question was deliberately presented to respondents without furtherclarification as to what defines a 'good' or 'poor' manager of waste as the aim initially wasto access their judgments on their own terms. Subsequent questions probed more deeply intowhat they understood to be good management behaviour and what specific actions theyundertook regularly in relation to household waste management. Despite low levels ofparticipation in activities beyond conforming generally to the demands of the door-to-doorcollections provided by their local authorities and the nationally acknowledged low levels ofrecycling for household waste (EPA, 2004), most respondents (87 percent of the total) viewedthemselves as either 'good' or 'excellent' managers of waste. Respondents falling into theyounger age groups were however more likely to perceive themselves as 'poor' or 'very poor'managers of household waste, compared with those in older age groups. Across all the casestudy areas only nine percent of those aged 18-29 classed themselves as 'excellent' managersof waste, a percentage that increased through the age categories to 24 percent in the 70+ agegroup, which is surprising given the prevailing view in environmental attitudes research thatsuggests younger people are more likely to be environmentally aware and active (Inglehart,1995). In relation to housing tenure, owner occupiers were most likely to rate themselves as'excellent' managers of waste (18%) compared to respondents in social housing (11%) andprivate renters (10%). Some locational differences were evident also. For example, withinKerry, 32 percent and 22 percent of respondents in, respectively, Dingle and Listowelconsidered themselves 'poor' managers of household waste, compared with only eightpercent of respondents in Killarney. It is possible to propose reasons for these differences. Forexample, younger people might be prioritising other areas of their lives rather than waste, orthey may be more aware than older people of the environmentally sound actions they couldbe undertaking, owner occupiers might have more investment in their local area than rentersand some areas may be better served in terms of sophisticated waste collections givingresidents a positive feeling of behaving properly in relation to waste management. Onceagain, however, the questionnaire provides little concrete evidence on these issues. Animportant question is how are householders, who admit to low levels of recycling re-use orwaste reduction, then able to identify themselves as 'good' or 'excellent' managers of waste?The interviews provided space to explore this mismatch further, revealing a distinctionbetween householders who perceived themselves as 'good' and 'excellent' managers ofhousehold waste because they complied with the basic waste collection requirements on theone hand, and householders who were pro-active in their management of waste (e.g. theyrecycled and composted) on the other. The interviews exposed householders to be, on thewhole, largely passive when it came to the management of household waste:

When the green bins are there, when they are provided, you tend to use them; I don'tthinkpeople go out of their way...maybe if they are spoon-fed and given the stuff andtold to put things in the bin. (¥106:14)

Passivity here is defined as undertaking only activities that are provided on the doorsteprather than actively seeking out mechanisms for improved management of waste. Manyinterviewees benchmarked their personal waste management performance against therequirements of the door-to-door collection services. This being so, upgrading thesophistication of door-to-door collections has the potential to raise socially accepted norms ofwaste management behaviour and increase participation in more pro-active forms of waste

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


management. However the solution is not as straightforward as simply providing more andbetter facilities. When respondents were asked to state what would encourage them to improvefurther their waste management behaviour, 20 percent of those who thought they were alreadygood managers of waste felt that nothing would make them improve. This constituency wouldneed to be persuaded that they could be doing more to help resolve the challenges of wastemanagement. As sizable proportions of this group said that good waste management behaviourwas important for the protection of the environment (44%) and for hygiene reasons (13%),these areas would be obvious ones to focus awareness raising initiatives5. It would seempertinent then to provide more information about the environmental and health benefits ofreducing or recycling waste, a point supported by 56 percent of respondents who felt that theywere given too little information on waste issues. Interviews provided the space to exploremore carefully the exact nature of information that the respondents wanted. Intervieweesexpressed a desire for the frequent provision of appropriate and practical information on wastemanagement techniques. In particular, interviewees felt that information on the finaldestination of waste and recyclables was patchy and as a result there was some scepticismexpressed over the actual treatment of recyclables. Interviewees also called for information tobe specific to their locality, including information on the locations and accessibility of off-siterecycling facilities and the services they provide:

/ don't think people are informed enough around here about recycling and the trans-fer stations round here. I work around Killarney and I see the old fridges and oldcookers and that kind of thing which is sitting in people's back gardens and they arejust waiting for someone to get rid of them. I say "do you know you can rid of thatat the transfer station "...people don't know they can get rid of them locally.(KI 17:33)

Information was felt by many interviewees to be inaccessible and outdated. Therespondents wanted frequent updates and reminders about waste management solutions andpractices, and they wanted this information delivered to their door. Interviewees alsohighlighted the importance of trustworthy and clear information. The problems ofcontradictory information were mentioned in relation to incineration in particular, but theywere also raised in relation to debates about the actual environmental benefits of recyclingactivities and the volume of recyclable materials being collected that actually get recycled. Itis important to note, however, that while many respondents called for more information to.promote greater public participation-in waste management initiatives they also acknowledgedthat the simple provision of information would not necessarily lead to improved actions. Inthis way information is necessary, but alone insufficient to improve waste managementbehaviour. As the next section will suggest, there are many factors which can influence bothattitudes and actions towards waste management, not least a feeling that other actors andagencies, particularly Government and business, were better placed to reduce waste volumes:

/ think that businesses, and the likes of supermarkets, have a huge role to play. If youlook at the rubbish that you have, basically most of it would come from the super-market end, where you are disposing of food wrappers and things... maybe insteadof charging residents, why not charge businesses and shops, supermarkets, multina-tionals, fast food restaurants, all that kind of thing. I think they are the people whocan afford it. (FI02:63-64)

The interview phase of research not only facilitated the clarification of confusingquestionnaire responses, it also provided space for interviewees to talk more freely about their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


behaviour in relation to waste. The resultant communication with respondents providedvaluable insights into why high levels of concern about waste are not always matched byappropriate practices of waste management behaviour. Through a process of conceptualcoding6 of the qualitative data, four intertwined themes- relationships, personality,practicality and culture- emerged as important categories affecting how householdersmanaged their waste. These four themes are discussed in the following section.

Understanding waste management behaviour

Respondents repeatedly referred to the state of their relationships with other actors andinstitutions when asked why they adopted particular waste management practices. Inparticular the nature of relationships between themselves, Government and manufacturersseem to be pivotal in either motivating positive action around waste or inhibiting it. Giventhat local authorities have traditionally been the main service provider for municipal wastemanagement, it is perhaps unsurprising that nearly all interviewees referred to theirrelationship with their local authority at some point during the interview. While some of theinterviewees with strong negative views of waste charges or a poor experience in dealing withtheir local authority in the past were overtly hostile towards the local authority, mostacknowledged the difficult decisions that local authorities and their personnel must make intheir daily work. Nonetheless the concerns of interviewees revolved around the ability tocontact appropriate people in the local authority when needed and to obtain a suitableresponse to their enquiries. In other words, their main concerns were with access andcommunication of information:

/ get the feeling that by and large the guys, people in the local authority are fairlykind of open, but it's a question of getting access to them and I think that the wholestructure of the local authority is not structured that well to facilitate people, they 'relike faceless bureaucrats... in fact they 're not faceless bureaucrats it's just the struc-ture of local democracy. (FI04:160)

On the whole, interviewees did not suggest that the relationship between local authoritiesand communities could be resolved simply by increased effort on the part of the localauthority alone, and many were aware of householders who were not participating sufficientlynor genuinely enough to create an effective relationship for improving waste managementbehaviour. Nonetheless the interviews revealed a public who felt distanced from their localauthority and unable to influence the form or functioning of waste management practicesspecifically. There were clearly feelings that relationships between communities andgovernments (local and national) could be improved through better two-way communication,enhanced information provision and more transparent ways of working together. Similarfindings also emerged from studies of waste management planning in the UK and successfulattempts have been made to construct more deliberative practices in decision making aridpolicy implementation (Petts, 2001).

Another relationship discussed during the interviews was that between householders asconsumers and manufacturers. In particular, it was common for interviewees to reportfrustration with edicts from Government for them to buy products with less packaging whenthey claimed that the option to buy unpackaged goods was not available. Intervieweesfrequently suggested that they felt the real power to reduce waste, through such things as lesspackaging, lay with the manufacturers rather than with themselves and they responded withscepticism to claims by manufacturers that they were simply responding to the demands of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


consumers. The relationship between consumers and manufacturers is likely to come undercloser scrutiny in the future (Coggins, 2001; Geyer-Allely and Zacarias-Farah, 2003). Froma policy perspective at least the allocation of responsibility within this relationship betweenconsumer and producer is by no means clear-cut.

The impact of peer pressure on the waste management actions of interviewees wasevident and manifested itself in two ways. People often expressed quite strong negative viewsabout certain groups of people who, in their opinion, were not adhering to the social normsof waste management behaviour either through littering, illegal dumping or backyardburning. Some notion of what has been termed civic environmentalism (Sirianni andFriedland, 1995) or environmental citizenship (Dobson and Bell, 2005), in other wordswidely understood and agreed norms regarding environmental behaviour, appeared tounderpin these views. Interviewees referred indirectly to this notion through statements aboutwhat was 'the right thing to do' with regards to waste, while positive peer pressure wasidentified by many respondents as a useful means of regulating poor waste managementbehaviour. However, interestingly, those householders who were most pro-active in relationto waste also mentioned what they felt was negative peer pressure. These interviewees feltthat because of their more active stance in relation to waste management, others sometimesperceived them as being in some way extreme environmentalists. Although these people saidthey would not change their actions because of such reactions, others wavering on thethreshold of adopting more positive waste behaviour might be discouraged by similarcomments. So while there may be an assumed level of normalised waste behaviour thatincorporates simple strategies, such as adhering to the demands of door-to-door collections,it cannot be assumed that more active citizens will necessarily be able to bring passive wastemanagers with them through positive peer pressure alone.

The interviews revealed that ideally householders would like: to work alongsidemanufacturers to reduce packaging waste; management companies to provide suitablerecycling facilities for apartment blocks; and governments to provide adequate and accessiblefacilities for communities in every area. However, the reality is that relationships between thevarious actors in waste management are not ideal and challenges, including poor channels ofcommunication and mutual mistrust, exist (Macnaughten et ah, 1995). Given this imperfectbackground, many interviewees were not well disposed to take on extra tasks for wastemanagement; they felt that if other sectors, even other householders, were not going tocontribute, then there was little point them doing anything more than avoiding overtlynegative waste behaviours, such as illegal dumping and backyard burning.

Interviewees at times attributed their behaviour to their instinctive reactions to situations,claiming that their responses were characteristic of their personality. This is what socialpsychologists might call personal attitudes or even cognitive structures (Blake, 1999). Thesepersonality arguments were primarily invoked as justification for inaction by interviewees forwhom the environment and waste were peripheral concerns in the wider scheme of their dailylives:

It's because we are all so busy either going to college or working and we just don'thave time...Just laziness and I know it's quiet now, but the lads are usually up. Thereare always too many people around and it's just easier to use the one bin.(GCI04:15)

Fewer people identified personality characteristics as a positive motivating factor forundertaking more active waste management behaviour, what De Young (1986) has called

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


intrinsic motivation, but there were incidences where people referred to a seemingly in-builttendency to want to 'do the right thing' for waste management:

/ was always inclined to be mindful of the environment. I wouldn 't be an all out envi-ronmentalist. I would consider myself to be a part-time environmentalist. I some-times use washable nappies and I sometimes use disposable nappies, depending onwhat suits. I was always inclined to be aware of waste. (FI01:5)

While interviewees often assumed that their behaviour was dictated by fixed personalitycharacteristics much of their discussions actually focused on habits or habitual behaviour.There is a growing body of work that suggests that such behaviour can be modified throughpersuasion techniques such as community based social marketing (Biel, 2003; Cialdini,2001), although there are fears that continual calls through information campaigns to changebehaviour in an already information-rich society may not be effective. As Jackson (2005: xii)suggests 'pro-environmental behaviour change requires a more sophisticated policyapproach. A concerted strategy is needed to make behaviour change easy: ensuring thatincentive structures and institutional rules favour pro-environmental behaviour, enablingaccess to pro-environmental choices [and] engaging in initiatives to help themselves'.

The factor most commonly identified by households as influencing waste managementbehaviour was, however, whether the actions were practical or not. Even those people whoexpressed the intention or desire to carry out positive waste management behaviour usedthese practical or logistical arguments to explain why they failed to do so. Practicaldifficulties included a lack of time, money, space and information, as well as problems withaccessibility and mobility for the transport and disposal of recyclables. As found by Barr(2002), while these practical difficulties were undeniable in certain circumstances, in othersthe practical barriers were perhaps more perceived than real and convenience (or lack of it)was a key determining factor for action or inaction. If the positive waste management optionswere easy to carry out and were compatible with the lifestyle of householders then positiveaction was more likely to be undertaken:

The fact that we do use our green bin, but it's almost like, because it is practical,because we come from a large family we generate quite a bit of household waste, soin essence the green bin, while its function is essentially an environmentally friend-ly one, it actually serves a practical one for us. (FI09:4)

Although relationships, personality characteristics and practical options for wastemanagement were used to explain both positive and negative waste management behaviour,interviewees also suggested that a broader societal influence was also important. Intervieweesreferred to what they saw as a culture that served to inhibit positive waste managementbehaviour in Ireland. There were claims made by some that as a previously colonised nationIrish people do not like to follow regulations imposed by the State, including wasteregulations. Following this line of argument, the passive management of waste dominantthroughout Ireland was characterised as a form of resistance against authority. More commonhowever was the view that Ireland had an underdeveloped national commitment to wastemanagement and environmental issues in general. Discussions of national culture are thoughcomplex and while much work has been conducted on issues of national identity, post-colonialism and culture generally (see Nash, 2001) and in Ireland (see Howe, 2000), littleattention has been devoted to understanding how such factors might affect attitudes andbehaviour towards areas of environmental policy such as waste.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


Fundamentally there is no simple reason either why people are motivated to undertakeappropriate waste management behaviour, or why they do not. It is likely that a mix of factors- including practical opportunities or difficulties (such as a lack of accessible facilities),pessimistic or optimistic personality traits (such as believing that individual recycling canmake a difference), a weakly or well-defined sense of civic responsibility and finally generalsocio-cultural norms - shape behaviour. It is often difficult for householders to imaginechanging their waste management behaviour. The changes required are often erroneouslyassumed to be substantial simply because waste is not prioritised in their busy schedules.Clearly evident from other research (e.g., Ekins, 2004; Hobson, 2003) is that requests byGovernment for people to change their behaviour are rarely sufficient. Moreover, 'the ideathat people can be persuaded to change their behaviour supposes that behaviour is somethingthat can be adjusted at will' (Shove, 2004:9). Such a supposition goes against the findings ofthis study, which indicate that personal routines and habits are, in fact, constrained andsustained by a plethora of shared social and cultural norms, as well as institutions andinfrastructures.

Removing some of the barriers identified, such as the lack of recycling facilities, isrelatively straightforward with good planning and sufficient funding, but other mechanismsfor reducing the gap between their concerns and actions are less clear-cut, both in theirdefinition and implementation. In addition to the practical demands for more facilities and theenforcement of regulations, interviewees themselves proposed two main categories ofchanges. First, increased and improved education for householders about the problems ofwaste management and the actions they could take to reduce those problems. Second,improved and appropriate consultation methods that would encourage householders to bemore active in their participation in waste management and which would providehouseholders with channels for two-way communication with waste service providers.

Greater education about positive waste management behaviour was the most frequentlysuggested mechanism for changing behaviour at the householder level. Three-quarters ofinterviewees mentioned the role of education at some time during the interviews. Educationthrough formal schooling for children was the most common channel proposed on the basisthat providing information and facilities in schools not only increases awareness amongyounger generations, but also impacts on parents through pressure from their children. Suchideas have been supported by research on initiatives such as the Green Schools Campaign(Harvey, 2002) and were identified by interviewees:

[A] way of increasing awareness is through education like in Creagh NationalSchool. Because the children are great to dictate to the parents and make them recy-cle. Even when we go out home he tells my father 'you can't be burning things! Andto my mum he says 'we wash all out bean cans' ...Even in work the people say thattheir kids are brilliant. (GCOI02:9)

Some interviewees felt that waste education was better dealt with in schools rather thanthrough media awareness campaigns. Several commented negatively on the advertisementsthat ran with the Race Against Waste campaign (during 2004), with most feeling that theshock tactics used were ill-judged and would not make people feel any more predisposed totry and manage their waste in more positive ways. In fact they felt it might add to anindividual's feelings of helplessness. Other interviewees spoke of the need to raise awarenessmore generally in society, and to ensure that any information provided was appropriate to a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


recipient's situation. However, it was widely acknowledged in the interviews that, on theirown, improvements in education and information provision were unlikely to solve existingproblems. Moreover, a top-down provision of information, from governments tocommunities, might even be counterproductive unless relationships between governingauthorities, waste service providers and communities were improved. Increased consultationis one means through which such improved communication could be achieved:

/ do think it [consultation] would improve matters. At least people would feel theyhad been consulted, but at the moment I don't think there is much consultation withthe general public. The hackles get raised and people get very annoyed. (FI01:72)

[ _ _ Cultural~ ^ ^ > - Change

Policy ChangeInstitutional Change

Behavioural ChangeOrganisational & Individual

Figure 2: Simplified schema of influences on waste management behaviour (from Ekins, 2004:3).

Establishing appropriate consultation methods is key to achieving better communicationbetween authorities and communities. Poorly implemented methods could also provedetrimental, with people feeling excluded from discussions of local significance or thatparticipation is mere tokenism. Although by no means all the interviewees felt they wouldwant to be very active in local waste matters, a number did say that this was because theopportunities for getting involved were limited:

Nobody is consulted. We don't have waste management committees for Gort, so thereisn't a county one. So there is no forum for ideas or leaders in the country that isrelated to a modem population. (GCOI06:28)

It was felt that if alternative processes existed, such as voluntary fora, people might bemore willing to participate. The nature of these fora is crucial to their success. Intervieweesfelt they should be non-confrontational, but that this might be difficult in such a contentiousarea as waste management. A breakdown in trust, the centralisation of politics and thedominant role of councillors meant that interviewees generally did not think it was their jobto participate and did not believe that their contribution would be taken seriously if they did.The area of consultation and participation in waste management has been addressed in othercountries (see Petts, 2001) and further work in Ireland would be useful.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


Discussion

The results of the questionnaire and interviews may appear to present a negative pictureof the current situation regarding the management of household waste in Ireland. However,those householders who participated generally thought that waste management issues werebeginning to be addressed and appreciated that local authorities, in particular, had manyimportant demands on their budgets that precluded wholesale changes to the ways that wastewas managed. Indeed a significant number of interviewees talked about how they had seenwaste management facilities evolving in recent years and that local authorities and serviceproviders deserved credit for this. Furthermore, participants in the research felt that, asprocedures and facilities were improved, so people's norms and values in relation to wastemanagement would catch up over time. There was also a sense from interviewees that wastemanagement had come a long way in the past decade, and that sufficient momentum haddeveloped to carry it through to a higher level over time.

It is evident from the results of this study that the factors affecting waste managementbehaviour of householders are multiple and intertwined and changing behaviour is not an easytask. Human, including waste management, behaviour is the outcome of interactions offactors that are social, cultural and contextual on the one hand and individual on the other(and see Figure 2). There is no one simple model that can be developed to enable policymakers to input a waste problem and emerge with a one-size-fits-all solution; people andplaces are simply too diverse. Equally, simply telling people to change behaviour orestablishing voluntary initiatives are unlikely to move things far towards waste reductionunless collaborative and co-operative endeavours, focusing on increasing waste preventionand minimisation, are developed. Nonetheless, even within such social complexity, two keypoints emerge that suggest the development of certain procedures might facilitate movementtowards a more sustainable household waste management system.

First, waste management is set within a wider framework of social and politicalstructures that impact upon the perception of waste management services by householders(and see Blake, 1999; Davies, 2002; Hobson, 2003; Shove, 2004). This interconnection willnot be problematic where positive social and political structures exist. However, whencontroversial'aspects of waste management processes are exposed - such as the proposal to

. build an incinerator in Galway - then wider frustrations and concerns with politics andpoliticians may bubble to the surface and negatively impact upon implementation of wastemanagement practices. Such interconnectedness means that simply providing informationabout what actions for waste management are the right ones is unlikely to change behaviourin major ways, particularly among sceptical sections of the public. Information is crucial increating a groundswell of social concern and comment about waste issues, but there alsoneeds to be a more sophisticated understanding of the kind of information provided, the viewsof the recipients of that information and, importantly, their views of the informationproviders.

Second, a tendency only to consider the transfer of information about waste from serviceproviders and other waste experts to householders and communities ignores the valuable rolethat members of the public can play in terms of providing relevant information (Petts, 2001).Householders do have a detailed understanding of their own waste generating habits and thebarriers and opportunities they face on a daily basis in terms of waste management practices.Two-way channels for information flows about waste management would enablecommunication between communities, householders and waste service providers. A note of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


caution is necessary here, however. Two-way channels of communication are unlikely toproduce the desired reduction in waste if there is a lack of trust between the partners (Eameset ah, 2003). Throughout the research presented here numerous allusions were made to thelack of trust between different sections of society. For example, householders were not alwaysconvinced that local authorities had their best interests at heart and they sometimes felt thatmanufacturers created a problem that they, as householders, then had to pay for. A number ofinterviewees also felt that certain sections of communities received preferential treatment, interms of the benefits of improved waste management services, at the expense of others.Although these articulated feelings of mistrust and injustice may, in part at least, be driven bythe desire of interviewees to deflect responsibility away from themselves to other sections ofsociety, they nonetheless demand attention if waste service providers seriously valuehouseholders as collaborators in positive waste management practices.

Better understanding between waste management actors could reduce any mistrust andlead to a more enlightened system of waste management planning, creating a virtuous circleof household waste management (Figure 3). There are many examples of the piloting oftechniques to assist in the development of a more positive and participative environment,some in the waste field (such as deliberative mapping or community advisory councils) andsome in other areas of environmental policy (such as citizens juries), yet few of these havebeen run in Ireland (but see Whelan, 2003) and none have become widely institutionalised.Nonetheless the need for community participation in environmental planning, including thewaste sector, is clearly identified in documents such as DoELG (1997; 2002), and communitycooperation will be essential to meet EU and national waste targets outlined in DoEHLG(2004).

The urgent need for greater involvement of communities specifically in wastemanagement planning has already been empirically identified by research on attitudes andbehaviour in relation to waste conducted in Ireland and by international researchers (see

Improved communicationbetween waste actors

Improved mechanisms forwaste management

Improved understandingbetween waste actors

Figure 3: A virtuous circle of household waste management.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


Armour, 1995; Petts, 2001). In addition, there remains significant public opposition to manywaste facilities in Ireland. In this context of conflict, mechanisms to establish somecommunication between local authorities, developers and communities regarding appropriatelocal strategies for waste management could provide decision-makers with the confidence totake difficult decisions and may begin to develop more effective dialogue between differentparties involved in the household waste sector.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the EPA/ERTDI for their generous support for theresearch presented in this paper through a research grant (research grant # 2001-MS-SE2-M1)and through a PhD scholarship awarded to Frances Fahy. Anna Davies would like toacknowledge the support of the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social SciencesResearch Fellowship (2004-2005) that she held during the preparation of this paper. Furtherthanks are also extended to Honora Meade and Abigail O'Callaghan-Platt who worked asResearch Assistants on the project and to staff in Fingal County Council, Galway City andCounty Councils and Kerry County Council, in particular the environmental officers, whogave their time and support to the research. The research would not have been possiblewithout the co-operation and willingness of those who participated in the questionnairesurvey and in interviews, focus group discussions and waste minimisation exercises.

Notes

1. 'Environmental attitudes and behaviour: values, actions and waste management'. Detailed reportsfrom each stage of the project can be accessed at: http://www.tcd.ie/Geography/Abt_06(EPA).html.

2. See Davies et al. (2005) for complete coverage of the results of the research project.

3. Hereafter, these local authority areas are referred to as Fingal and Kerry. The local authority areasadministered by Galway County and Galway City Councils are for the most part in this reportgrouped together and referred to as Galway. In a few cases they are treated singularly and referredto as Galway County and Galway City.

4. Each quote has an identifier, e.g., FI01:12, which refers to the location of the interview (FI = FingalInterview), the number allocated to the interviewee (e.g. 01 up to 20) and the numbered locationof the text units, in this case paragraphs, that contain the relevant block of material (e.g. 12 refersto text unit 12) used in the quotation. Quotes are recorded verbatim, although where there is a lackof clarity some alterations have been added to ease understanding. These additions are enclosed bysquare brackets. Other stages in the research not covered in subsequent parts of this paper includ-ed focus group meetings with school-aged children and a waste minimisation exercise, run over aperiod of one month, involving eleven participating households. Details available at:http://www.tcd.ie/Geography/Abt_06(EPA).html.

5. It is interesting that only one percent of respondents in this category felt that financial incentiveswould encourage them to manage their waste in an environmentally friendly manner (although thesmall number of people who thought they were poor managers of waste were more inclined to beinfluenced by financial measures).

6 Conceptual coding, sometimes referred to as generative or open coding is the process of identify-ing categories of concepts and themes that emerge from the data. The data are explored withoutmaking any prior assumptions about what might be discovered and therefore has its roots inGrounded Theory (Channaz, 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


References

ARMOUR, A. (1995) The citizens' jury model of public participation, In: Renn, O., Webber, T. andWiedemann, P. (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models forEnvironmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

BARR, S. (2002) Household waste in social perspective: values, attitudes, situation and behaviour.Aldershot: Ashgate.

BIEL, A. (2003) Environmental behaviour: changing habits in social context, In: Biel, A., Hansen, B.and Martensspn, M. (eds) Individual and structural determinants of environmental practice.Burlington VT: Ashgate.

BLAKE, J. (1999) Overcoming the 'value-action gap' in environmental policy: tensions betweennational policy and local experience, Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278.

BLAKE, J. and CARTER, C. (1997) Community and environmental attitudes and actions inHuntingdonshire. Cambridge: Committee for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies.

BOYLE, M. (2002) Cleaning up after the Celtic Tiger: scalar 'fixes' in the political ecology of Tigereconomies, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27(2), 111-125

CHARMAZ, K. (2002) Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis, In: Gubrium, J.F. andHolstein, J.A. (eds) Handbook of Interview Research: Context & Method. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, 509-535.

CIALDINI, R. (2001) Harnessing the science of persuasion, Harvard Business Review, 7915, 71-80.COAKLEY, T. and CUNNINGHAM, D. (2004) Assessment and Development of a Waste Prevention

Framework for Ireland, Clean Technology Centre, Cork IT, Cork.COGGINS, C. (2001) Waste prevention - an issue of shared responsibility for UK producers and con-

sumers: policy options and measurement, Resources Conservation and Recycling, 32(3-4), 181-190.DAVIES, A.R. (1999) Sustainable Communities: end of project report. Cambridge: Committee for

Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies.DAVIES, A.R. (2002) Power, politics and networks: shaping partnerships for sustainable communities,

Area, 34(2), 190-203.DAVIES, A.R. (2003) Waste wars - public attitudes and the politics of place in waste management

strategies, Irish Geography, 36(1), 77-92.DAVIES, A.R. (2005) Incineration politics and the geographies of waste governance: a burning issue

for Ireland? Environment and Planning C: Government and Society, 23(3), 375-398.DAVIES, A.R., TAYLOR, D.M., FAHY, F., MEADE, H. and O'CALLAGHAN-PLATT, A. (2005)

Environmental attitudes and behaviour: values, actions and waste management. Final researchreport to the Environmental Protection Agency Ireland (research grant # 2001-MS-SE2-M1).Dublin: EPA.

DE YOUNG, R. (1986) Some psychological aspects of recycling, Environment and Behaviour, 18(4),435-449.

DOBSON, A. and BELL, D. (2005) Environmental Citizenship, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.DoELG (DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT and LOCAL GOVERNMENT) (1997) Sustainable

Development: A Strategy for Ireland. Dublin: DoELGDoELG (DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT and LOCAL GOVERNMENT) (2002) Making

Ireland's Development Sustainable. Dublin: DoELGDoEHLG (DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT) (2004)

Waste Management: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. Dublin: DoEHLGDRURY RESEARCH (2000) Attitudes and actions: a national survey on the environment. Dublin:

DoEHLGDRURY RESEARCH (2003) Attitudes and actions: a national survey on the environment. Dublin:

DoEHLGEAMES, M., STIRLING, A., BURGESS, J., DAVIES, G., WILLIAMSON, S., MAYER, S. and STA-

LEY, K. (2003) Deliberative mapping: integrating citizens and specialists appraisals in a trans-parent and inclusive participatory process, presentation at the Frontier 2 Conference, Tenerife 12-15 Feb. 2003. Available at: http://www.eurocolecom.org/frontiers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


EKINS, P. (2004) Answers to the core programme questions on environment and human behaviour,Environment and Human Behaviour Newsletter 02. London: Policy Studies Institute.

EPA (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) (2002) Environment in Focus 2002. Dublin:EPA.

EPA (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) (2004) National Waste Database Interim Report2003. Dublin: EPA.

FAHY, F. (2003) Talking rubbish: waste management strategies in Ireland, In: Taylor D. (ed.) TrinityPapers in Geography No. 8. Dublin: Department of Geography, University of Dublin, 8-23.

GEYER-ALLELY, E. and ZACARIAS-FARAH, A. (2003) Policies and instruments for promoting sus-tainable household consumption, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(8), 923-926.

GUSTAFSEN, P. (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological per-spectives, Risk Analysis, 18(6), 805-11.

HARVEY, A. (2002) Combating waste with environmental education, Unpublished MSc thesisEnvironmental Science, Trinity College. Dublin: University of Dublin.

HOBSON, K. (2003) Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process in questioninghousehold consumption practices, Local Environment, 8(1), 95-112.

HOWE, S. (2000) Ireland and empire: colonial legacies in Irish history and culture. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

INGLEHART, R. (1995) Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems andSubjective Values in 43 Societies, Political Science and Politics, 15: 57-71.

JACKSON, T. (2005) Motivating Sustainable Consumption: a report to the Sustainable DevelopmentResearch Network. Available at: http://www.sd-research.org.uk/documents/MotivatingSCfinal.pdf

MACNAGHTEN, P., GROVE-WHITE, R., JACOBS, M., and WYNNE, B. (1995) Public perceptionsand sustainability in Lancashire: indicators, institutions and participation. Preston: LancashireCounty Council, Lancaster University Centre for the Study of Environmental Change.

NASH, K. (2001) The 'cultural' turn in social theory: towards a theory of cultural politics, Sociology,35(1), 77-92.

PETTS, J. (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: waste management case-stud-ies, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 207-226.

PIDGEON, N., HENWOOD, K. and IRWIN, A. (2005) Gender theories and risk perception, ESRCScience and Society Small Grant. Details available at: http://www.sci-soc.net/SciSoc/Projects

SHOVE, E. (2004) Future comforts, reconditioning urban environments, Environment and HumanBehaviour Newsletter 02. London: Policy Studies Institute.

SRIANNI, C. and FRIEDLAND, L. (1995) Civic Environmentalism, Civic Practices Network,California: Online @ UW: Electronic Publishing Group. Available at: http://www.cpn.org/

STEEL, B. (1996) 'Thinking globally and acting locally? Environmental attitudes, behaviour andactivism', Journal of Environmental Management, 47, 27-36.

WHELAN, N. (2003) Citizens'jury brings in its verdict: incineration is not the solution, Irish Examiner,13 November 03.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

12 0

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Mind the gap! Householder attitudes and actions towards waste in Ireland