Mobilizing citizen effort to enhance environmental outcomes: A randomized controlled trial of a door-to-door recycling campaign

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 91, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 403-410

  Cotterill, Sarah ^a   John, Peter ^a   Liu, Hanhua ^a   Nomura, Hisako ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Canvassing; Experiment; Randomized controlled trial; Recycling

Indexed keywords

BASELINE CONDITIONS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; NUMERICAL MODEL; RECYCLING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO CHANGE; BEHAVIOR CHANGE; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOMESTIC WASTE; ETHNIC GROUP; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; RECYCLING; REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE;

ENGLAND; EURASIA; EUROPE; TRAFFORD; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 70449622738     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Arceneaux K., and Nickerson D. Who is mobilized to vote? A re-analysis of eleven randomized field experiments. American Journal of Political Science 53 1 (2009) 1-16
2. Beaman A.L., Cole M.C., Preston M., Klentz B., and Mehrkens Steblay N. Fifteen years of foot in the door research: a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9 (1983) 181-196
3. Bryce W.J., Day R., and Olney T.J. Commitment approach to motivating community recycling: New Zealand kerbside trial. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 31 1 (1997) 27-52
4. Burger J.M., and Caldwell D.F. The effects of monetary incentives and labeling on the foot-in-the-door effect: evidence for a self-perception process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 25 3 (2003) 235-241
5. Cialdini R.B., Trost M.R., and Newsom J.T. Preference for consistency: the development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (1995) 318-328
6. Freedman J.L., and Fraser S.C. Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4 2 (1966) 195-202
7. Green D.P., and Gerber A.S. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout (2008), Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C
8. Harder M.K., Woodard R., and Bench M.L. Two measured parameters correlated to participation rates in kerbside recycling schemes in the UK. Environmental Management 37 4 (2006) 487-495
9. Hox J. Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications (2002), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey
10. Jackson T. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change (2005), Policy Studies Institute, London
11. John P., and Brannan T. How different are telephoning and canvassing? A get out the vote field experiment in the UK 2005 general election. British Journal of Political Science 38 (2008) 565-574
12. Littell R.C., Milliken G.A., Stroup W.W., and Wolfinger R.D. SAS System for Mixed Models (1996), SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC
13. Lyas J.K., Shaw P.J., and Van Vugt M. Provision of feedback to promote householders' use of a kerbside recycling scheme - a social dilemma perspective. Journal of Solid Waste Technology 30 (2004) 7-18
14. Martin M., Williams I.D., and Clark M. Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste recycling: a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 48 (2006) 357-395
15. Moher D., Schulz K., and Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 1 1 (2001) 2
16. Perry G.D.R., and Williams I.D. The participation of ethnic minorities in kerbside recycling: a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49 (2007) 308-323
17. Read A.D. A weekly doorstep recycling collection, I had no idea we could! Overcoming the local barriers to participation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26 (1999) 217-249
18. Reams M.A., and Ray B.H. The effects of 3 prompting methods on recycling participation rates - a field-study. Journal of Environmental Systems 22 4 (1993) 371-379
19. Schultz P.W. Changing behaviour with normative feedback interventions: a field experiment on kerbside recycling. Basic and Applied Psychology 21 1 (1998) 25-36
20. Shaw P.J. Nearest neighbour effects in kerbside household waste recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 775-784
21. Shaw P.J., Lyas J.K., Maynard S.J., and Van Vugt M. On the relationship between set-out rates and participation ratios as a tool for enhancement of kerbside household waste recycling. Journal of Environmental Management 83 (2007) 34-43
22. Shaw P.J., and Maynard S.J. The potential of financial incentives to enhance householders' kerbside recycling behaviour. Waste Management 28 10 (2008) 1732-1741
23. Timlett R.E., and Williams I.D. Public participation and recycling performance in England: a comparison of tools for behaviour change. Resources Conservation and Recycling 52 4 (2008) 622-634
24. Tucker P. Normative influences in household waste recycling. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42 1 (1999) 63-82
25. Woodward R., Bench M., and Harder M.K. The development of a UK kerbside scheme using known practice. Journal of Environmental Management 75 2 (2005) 115-127
26. Waste & Resources Action Programme. Improving the performance of waste diversion schemes: a good practice guide to monitoring and evaluation. WRAP, Banbury. Available at (2006). http://www.wrap.org.uk/ (accessed 07.03.08.)
27. Waste & Resources Action Programme. Step by step guide to door-to-door canvassing. WRAP, Banbury. Available at (2006). http://www.wrap.org.uk/ (accessed 07.03.08.)