Abstract
With rising costs of landfill and waste management for businesses, it is increasingly important to understand how to gain high recycling rates through self-separation by occupants in the office environment. Through a detailed case study approach, this paper shows that the office environment does have a profound effect on environmental behaviour. The findings indicate that with careful analysis, facilities can be designed around behaviour to encourage the highest possible recycling rates. The paper shows that a generalised system of recycling for all facilities is not the way forward. Different organisational cultures may foster different environmental behaviours and thus require variable facilities to maximise participation. The paper also reveals the causes of particular types of recycling behaviour.
Introduction
The Government has confirmed their commitment to a zero waste society in the 2011 Waste Review [1]. The Secretary of State for Defra, Caroline Spelman, acknowledges that one of the key issues for waste management is about making it easy for people and businesses to do “the right thing” [1]. In addition to looking at sustainable use of materials, waste prevention, re-use and recycling (including food waste and packing), collection methods and its final destination, the Waste Review 2011 introduces the idea of “recycling on the go”, that is on street recycling and in public spaces. This echoes the notion of this paper; how to deliver improved facilities to enable increased recycling. Reducing landfill use is an aim of the UK Government, which is being reinforced through landfill taxes and other such initiatives; currently charging £56 per tonne from April 2011 [2]. The government is promoting support for the waste hierarchy that will assist in reducing landfill use; this is reinforced in the 2011 Waste Review. The hierarchy favours “prevention” first, with a particular focus on reducing material use in the design and manufacture stages, followed by “re-use” (e.g. through refurbishment or reusing parts), “recycling”, “recovery” (e.g. incineration with waste recovery, anaerobic digestion) and lastly “disposal” (e.g. landfill) [1]. The aim of office floor plate waste management is to prevent waste recovery or waste disposal. Waste disposal can be prevented by the facility manager through using recovery methods as an alternative. However, to prevent waste unnecessarily reaching that stage, is it the role of the facility manager to increase recycling, the role of the building occupant or both?
The 2011 Waste Review identified steps to be taken to improve the management of business waste, such as increasing the available facilities (in terms of managing the waste) and increasing the awareness of statutory requirements. However, the facilities available for the building occupants need to be considered to drive an increase in recycling. Achieving high levels of recycling through partnering with the workforce requires the motivation of individuals ensuring their full participation. This is a difficult process and if not fully successful, the benefits may be negligible due to contamination issues [3]. In 2009, 47.9 million tonnes of waste was produced by commerce and industry, 23.6% was recycled, 11.3% went to landfill and 1.3% was reused (11.7% was disposed through other methods) [1].
Previous research carried out within the commercial working environment found that information heavy recycling programmes are influential; with the information being more motivational than the presence of an environmental policy [4,5]. Local Authorities often use information leaflets as a method of distributing recycling information, but the process and impact is often affected by budgetary constraints [6]. However, the internet is providing an increasingly accessible medium. This may also be a similar problem in the commercial environment as recycling is a non-core business process, which for many reduces its importance. The physical facilities have been identified as playing a role to motivate recycling [7]. Research within residential real estate has also shown that public education programmes increase recycling rates, and regulation has a positive effect on recycling levels [8]. This makes a case for a holistic approach to recycling through a combination of engagement, creative facility management and education. A cultural shift over time appears far more likely than a moment of enlightenment.
On a practical level, efficient collection and separation of recycling waste in offices is needed, as beneficial use of the waste is dependent upon this occurring [9–12]; with cross-contamination of recyclable and non-recyclable (especially wet waste) reducing the possible usage and value of recyclable material. More recently, the move towards comingled recycling is proving to increase recycling rates domestically. The 2011 review of UK Local Authority (LA) kerbside recycling schemes found that the highest performing LAs were collecting comingled recyclable waste, with fortnightly collections and the use of wheeled bins. Moving to comingled recycling collection and the use of wheeled bins both had an effect on the success of the recycling system. In Sweden up to 20% of waste at recycling centres is incorrectly sorted, even though staffs are often on-site to assist [12]. In some cases, this has resulted in rare materials being unintentionally landfilled [12,13]. This incorrect sorting was attributed to the poor layout and structure of the collection systems, lack of information, low staffing levels, waste terminology issues, users’ knowledge and attitudes [12,14,15]. It is likely that a comingled recycling system would reduce the chance of recyclable items being placed in the incorrect receptacle.
Environmental Behaviour
Guerin et al. [16] focused on personal level explanatory variables during research on recycling behaviour. It was highlighted that individuals participating in local programmes to protect the environment tend to participate in recycling behaviour due to the nature of the activity. However, global environmental concern and a favourable opinion of Government efforts to protect the environment could also cause an individual to be more inclined to adopt environmentally friendly behaviour such as recycling [16].
There are commonly three main variables highlighted as acting to influence environmental behaviour [17,18];
Environmental values; an individual’s orientation towards the environment and the natural world [19], ranging from eco-centric to techno-centric [20,21]. Barr et al. [18] summarised this idea in that eco-centric values tend to represent a more environmentally conscious individual compared to techno-centric values representing an opinion of technology to provide the solution. Situational factors; variables representing an individual’s situation at a given time may affect their environmental action, such as access to services, age or gender [22–24]. Psychological variables; variables representing personality and perception traits involving philanthropic and motivation qualities, social pressures, environmental threats and a belief in the benefits of individual actions [18,25–30].
The attitude of a person, knowledge and recycling behaviour have been presented as explanatory reasons for participation in university recycling programmes for many studies [31–33]. It has been found that students with pro-environmental attitudes demonstrated pro-environmental behaviour with increased environmental knowledge, increasing the impact of pro-environmental attitudes on behaviour [34]. An investigation at BAA airports found that both goal setting and feedback used as methods to motivate the individual yield advantages [3,35]. When designing solid waste management systems, there needs to be a sound understanding of the composition of waste and processes that generate the actual waste [36,37], which necessarily requires an understanding of the behavioural characteristics being exhibited by such individuals using the facility. It should be remembered that just as an individual behavioural pattern in relation to recycling will vary dependent upon many factors so will the composition of each user group in relation to the different facilities available. A recycling strategy must take into account the human factor, the type of expected user, the possibility of extremes and how to engage individuals in the process. The role of social and institutional factors as a catalyst to create action from environmental concerns and attitudes has been the focus of many previous studies [23,24,38–40].
The Impact of Facilities
The relationship between perceived inconvenience and actual personal efforts required to recycle has been found to reduce participation in recycling schemes [32,41–44]. The more inconvenient recycling is considered to be, the lower its importance is considered [45]. In the University environment, it was reported that the number of aluminium cans recycled increased when the receptacles were moved from the corridors to the classrooms [46], making the location easier for recycling due to it being closer to the point of consumption [47]. In the domestic arena, convenient recycling schemes (such as kerbside recycling) have been associated with greater participation rates than less convenient methods such as drop off recycling points, which require greater personal effort and transportation [24,42,48–50]. However, self-organising of recycling and arranging the waste and facilities can also assist the recycling process [51,52]. Separation at source is seen as a model for the modern recycling process, but this brings with it associated problems such as low recovery rates and contamination [14]. The highlighted problems can be rectified through effective implementation during the start up of a system and through the provision of adequate information and feedback systems to encourage participation [14,53]. It is important to have insight into the attitude, knowledge and practical conditions of the recyclers [14,53–55]. Achieving an increase in recycling levels involves consideration of both the facility provision and the behavioural element [7]. Higher rates of recycling can be achieved through; informing people as to what materials can be recycled, where they can be recycled and informing people more effectively about the benefits of recycling [5]. In addition, knowledge of the environmental benefits of recycling and harms of not recycling are related to the achievable recycling rate and the awareness of consequences [25,49,56,57]. The ability for a person to locate the recycling facility is not sufficient to generate high levels of recycling [7], however for people who are motivated to recycle there must be clear directions as to where to locate the facility.
The existence of a link between environmental knowledge and environmental behaviour has been established [51]. Personal knowledge of a specific recycling scheme has been found to be positively correlated with recycling [5,51,58,59]. Surveys focusing on attitudinal factors found that recyclers are better informed about which materials are recyclable, where the materials can be recycled and the benefits of recycling on the environment, than non-recyclers [5]. These factors are interlinked and all aspects must be combined for a recycling programme to be successful [7].
Signs for recycling facilities have an important role but attention to the possible misinterpretation of signs is a factor to consider. Prior attitudes and knowledge can affect how information is processed [60–62]. When a proponent of recycling reads a sign displaying weak reasons to recycle, the individual will respond with their own more favourable argument [62], whereas an opponent will take the weak case at face value. Werner et al. [62] found two results of interest; first, participants preferred to see a factual sign that listed strong environmental reasons for why recycling is important, and secondly all signs (weak and strong) were effective at increasing recycling relative to a baseline level before signage was introduced. Posting information on recycling receptacles about the percentage of materials correctly separated and the weight of material collected at the location increased the percentage and number of correctly separated aluminium cans and paper [47]. Simply it appears that engagement in recycling can be generated when making the individual feel part of the environmental team, a common business productivity improvement dilemma.
The 1993 Florida State University study showed an increase in recycling following the introduction of informative cues. Following the installation of signs above the bins (labelled “trash” and “recyclable materials”) recycling in office 1 increased from a mean value of 51% pre-prompt to a mean value of 89% after prompt [7], and office 2 increased from a mean level of 51% to a mean level of 60% during the initial prompt and a mean value of 66% proximal condition. The second prompt condition was a relocation of the bins to be located next to each other rather than separately in the room. The investigation shows the affects of prompts in the form of signs on the recycling habits of office personnel as well as the location of facilities.
There may be differences between the recycling habits of an individual at home compared to that in the work place. Marans and Lee [4] found that 64% were frequent recyclers at home; however, half of the respondents agreed that the arrangement of the work place makes it easy to recycle yet only 16.3% were frequent recyclers at work. The link between the facilities available and recycling seems definitive; frequent recyclers were more likely to agree with the statements than non-recyclers; “the arrangement of the work space makes it easy for me to recycle” and “recycling at work is convenient.” Not surprisingly, a link was also displayed between companies with a recycling programme and employees who recycled more actively [4].
Research conducted by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) [63] (in collaboration with Measurement Evaluation Learning, (MEI) a consultancy specialising with assisting clients in developing public services found that the majority of people questioned (41%) were considered to be “trying their best” with recycling and recycled a “fair amount.” It was found that within this group, staple items were recycled but confusion existed around whether other materials could be recycled. It was established that education and the dissemination of information is needed within the recycling industry to encourage recycling. It was also established that there are myths about recycling and skepticism about the benefits. Financial spending on recycling programmes has been shown to increase recycling, with a $1 spend generating a 2% increase in the rate of recycling [8].
Current Study and Hypothesis Development
Much research has been carried out to study environmental behaviour and the affect of this on participation levels with environmental programmes such as domestic recycling. It is argued that a person with greater environmental values will display more environmentally conscious behavioural traits, such as participating in kerbside recycling schemes. Environmental behavioural traits have also been found to be affected by personality traits and perceptions of a given situation. If a person perceives the action of recycling to be difficult, then this will diminish the impact of their environmental values.
The key interest of this study is to test this theory in a modern office environment as opposed to the domestic environment. The key area of interest is the idea that the more inconvenient recycling is considered to be, the less interest people will hold in the process, and the lower the affect a person’s environmental moral sphere will have. This is of key importance to office design and facilities design, especially with the growing cultural demand to reduce our waste and negative effect on the environment. It is increasingly important when considering the rising cost to business of two waste management options; the use of landfill or the use of self-sorting waste management sites.
It is necessary to understand how facilities can be designed and placed to aid environmental behaviour. First, it is necessary to understand in the workplace the greatest influence on active environmental behaviour; the ease of the process or inbuilt environmental values.
The following hypotheses have been developed;
Hypothesis 1: A frequent recycler is likely to understand which items can be recycled and in which receptacle. Hypothesis 2: A frequent recycler is likely to be positively influenced by the proximity of the bins and agree with the location of the bins. Hypothesis 3: A frequent recycler is likely to be aware of the environmental campaign. Hypothesis 4: In the office environment where one is removed from the waste management process, the facilities have a greater influence on recycling rates rather than environmental behaviour.
Methods
Sample and Study Area
The study involved using a case study; which was a large building with over 3,000 occupants with standard recycling facilities available. In total, 500 questionnaires were distributed within the building population with 189 returned completed (38.7% response rate). The questionnaires were made available for 1 week at 3 different points in the building: in the canteen, in the occupants’ kitchenette areas and on the coffee shop tables. Building occupants could then self-select themselves for participation in the study. The questionnaires were made available at the purchase points in the canteen, and clearly on the tables in the kitchenette areas and coffee shop. The completed questionnaires were to be returned to the staff at the point of purchase in the restaurant. This led to a simple method to ensure participation. Typically, occupants will visit the restaurant daily due to the collocation of a coffee bar, however, a much lower proportion of building occupants use the canteen.
This positivist method was used due to this methods ability to develop objectivity through the use of scientific process [64–68]. The framework for quantitative research is based on the empiricist tradition established by Comte, Mill, Durkheim, Newton and Locke [69,70] and enables the research to have reliable, valid and statistically significant data set [68]. Amaratunga et al. [71] highlight a significant advantage for the positivist approach for this research area; the ability of the large samples to have relevance to policy decisions.
The office building has in place industry standard recycling facilities available to the users of the building; which include the option to recycle plastic, paper, cardboard, cans and toner cartridges. This case was chosen for research to enable intense investigation of a focused subject under a fixed condition of facilities. A case study is necessary to develop a practical and relevant study to a practical problem, to allow the study of an event where it is possible to identify more general theoretical principles [72,73]. It is especially suited to this case, as it is focused on the complexities found within a common system. Amaratunga and Baldry [73] summarise case study research as understanding the dynamics present within a single setting, adding a real life context to the research.
Survey Method and Question Design
Respondents were given a two-page questionnaire about their experience of the recycling facilities provided in the institution in which they work. There was a total of 29 questions on the survey, which can be broken down into five groups: level of participation in recycling schemes (3 items), materials recycled (3 items), factors motivating recycling (11 items), barriers to participating in recycling (8 items), knowledge of location (3 items) and information wanted (6 items). The relationship between the knowledge areas was included in the analysis.
To test the effectiveness of the questionnaire, a group was formed as a pilot study. This group was formed from a department within the case study building. The department is responsible for managing different aspects of the services provided to the building. The pilot group consisted of five people, with a mix of job roles and educational background. None of the group selected had a specific knowledge of recycling above the level of the wider building occupants. The questionnaire was updated following comments from the pilot group.
Initial questions set to establish what items respondents recycled, if any, through a simple selection of key office recyclables (paper/cardboard/cans/plastic/newspapers/glass). A second standard selection question asked respondents to self analyse their scale of recycling behaviour (frequent/infrequent/occasional). The majority of the remaining questions used a four-point Likert scale to gauge the level of agreement to items in the questionnaire; with options ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” A four-point Likert was used to dissuade indecision; however, it does also have the affect of not allowing neutrality. Variables relating to environmental behaviour and facility condition were presented in the Likert scale questions. Respondents were firstly asked to indicate the level of influence a number of variables had on their recycling behaviour (including both options of inherent environmental behaviour and facility provision). For those respondents that indicated early on that they do not recycle, they were asked to indicate the level of influence a number of variables had on dissuading recycling behaviour (again including both options of inherent environmental behaviour and facility provision). Respondents were also asked to give their level of agreement to clear statements about the facilities location, understanding of the intended use and the benefits and gains from recycling.
Previous research has helped to shape the survey questions for this research. It was necessary first to know what type of recycler the building occupants considered themselves to be, the categories were adapted from Scott [59]. In addition, it was of interest to understand what items occupants recycle in the office environment. However, due to the limited nature of office waste only a simplistic measure was taken, adapted from a more in-depth question asked by Ojala [74]. The variables chosen as potential factors to prevent or promote recycling were adapted from previous research [5,44,75,76]. Previous studies have also highlighted the affect of information on recycling behaviour [5,77,78]. From the studies, 10 questions were adapted to understand the level of knowledge linked to the type of recycler.
Much of the previous research on the affect of facility location on recycling has been based on household recycling and community refuse points. In the office environment, the variable “distance” has a different meaning; it is linked to convenience, habit and work place practices. The specific distance of the nearest recycling facilities is a question that has occurred in previous research [74], however, it was not asked here as it is not relevant for this case study as the distances are known. In this research, the question focused on whether occupants know the location, whether the location is an influence on recycling and whether the distance impacts the behaviour of a non-recycler.
Data Analysis
The normality of response distributions were tested using Klomogorov-Smirnov. For non-normal distributions of responses, a chi-square test was used to identify differences between variables. The chi-square test was first used to test the significance of the association between the influencing variables and the occupant’s decision to recycle in work. The chi-square test was also used to test the association between occupants who do not recycle and the desire for more information. Mann-Whitney U and Kendall’s Tau test was used to test associations between variables. A simple analysis of variance was used for parametric data (ANOVA).
Descriptive statistics
Results
Recycler Type
It was found that those who recycle at home are more likely to recycle at work (p = 0.000). The respondents were asked to self-analyse the type of recycler they believed they were; the majority of the sample highlighted themselves as a frequent recycler (61%), p = 0.000. Also a high proportion of respondents described themselves as occasional recyclers (30.3%), with few respondents believing they are infrequent recyclers (3.7%), p = 0.000. Respondents who recycle at home are more likely to highlight themselves as a frequent recycler at work (p = .000).
From initial investigations, the waste type in offices was judged to be fairly restricted. The model values indicate that occupants do recycle (code 1) newspapers, paper and plastic, but do not recycle cardboard, glass and aluminium. This may be linked to facility provision in that paper and plastic bins are available in every kitchen, whereas glass and cardboard bins are not.
Facilities
A descriptive overview shows that the two variables “distance of facilities” (69.3%) and “not clear what bins to use” (68.8%) are strong reasons in motivating against recycling. The chi-square test showed that there is a significant association between those who do not recycle and those who are not clear what bins to use (p<0.05). Showing possibly that a lack of information and/or inappropriate receptacles are barriers to participation.
Both the Kendall’s Tau test (p<0.05, p = 0.019) and the Mann-Whitney U (p<0.05, p = 0.03) test show a correlation between occupants who recycle and find the “proximity of bins” a strong influence on their behaviour. It can be said with confidence that the “proximity of facilities” is a strong influence on those who recycle. Carrying out the multivariate analysis of variance; Pillai’s Trace and Wilk’s Lambda show that the association between the type of recycler and both the “proximity of facilities” and the “distance of facilities” was statistically significant (p = 0.016). Frequent recyclers are highly influenced by the “proximity of the facilities” whilst non-recyclers are influenced by the “distance of facilities”.
The univariate analysis of variance shows that occupants are more likely to be a frequent recycler if they agree that the bins are “located in the best position” (p<0.05, p = 0.09), understand which “items go in which bins” (p<0.05, p = 0.011) and agree with the “location” (p<0.05, p = 0.031).
The results support hypotheses 1 and 2. This shows that more effective location of the recycling facilities is likely to increase the recycling rate by motivating the current non-recyclers to participate. In particular, the perceived distance of the facilities is an important factor, suggesting that when designing recycling facilities within offices, the number and location of the facilities are important. In addition, the results suggest that the information signs provided on the recycling receptacle are an important motivator to those that recycle.
Behaviour Traits
The association between type of recycler and the two variables “benefits to the environment” (p<0.05, p = 0.000) and recycling offers “environmental advantages” (p<0.05, p = 0.000) is significant. An analysis of variance, the Kruskal Wallis test, showed that the “environmental benefits” (p<0.05, p = 0.000) and the opinion that recycling offers a wide range of “environmental benefits” (p<0.05, p = 0.023) were considered a strong factor in the behaviour of recyclers, that is the people who do recycle are affected by their pro-environmental attitude. The factors that proved to have weak associations in motivating the non-recyclers against recycling are “personal objection”, “lack of environmental benefits” and “not my responsibility”. For the non-recyclers, a lack of belief in “environmental benefits” was not found to be a significant factor (p<0.05, p = 0.153). These variables related to environmental behaviour are shown to be not the significant reason to prevent recycling in the non-recycling group. The non-recyclers are not found to be prevented from recycling due to a lack of environmental beliefs.
A Spearman’s correlation test showed that for the non-recyclers the variable “not clear what materials are recyclable” is statistically significant with (p<0.05, p = 0.040). This shows that rather than a lack of environmental belief the occupants are deterred by confusion over what materials are recyclable. This could be because of inadequate facilities or a lack of signage or a misunderstanding of the information presented. The variables that are related to facilities specifically are stronger factors in causing users to not recycle.
Wider Information Initiatives
The individuals who do recycle indicated that they do not want more information about recycling in the work place. Similarly, the individuals who do not recycle also indicated that they do not want more information except for one variable. People who do not recycle in work want more information about the location of the recycling facilities. The chi-square test shows this association is significant (p<0.05, p = 0.010). The analysis of covariance shows that “advertising” influences the type of recycling behaviour (frequent, occasionally, infrequent; p<0.05, p = 0.025). When the affect of “advertising” is removed, the affect of the proximity of facilities becomes significant (p = 0.049). The variable advertising in this sense means a building-wide recycling awareness campaign. This supports hypothesis 3.
The multivariate analysis shows the importance of giving information about the intended use of each bin. The test for Pillai’s Trace shows that if building occupants are unsure about the “intended use of a bin” this has an effect on whether they recycle in work and the type of recycler they are (p<0.05, p = 0.04). Carrying out an analysis of covariance shows beyond this, a personal objection to recycling influences the type of recycling behaviour (p<0.05, p = 0.018). Therefore, the results support hypothesis 2 and 3.
Overall View of Influencing Factors
A descriptive overview of the affect of environmental behaviour variables show that the variable “environmental benefit” is considered to be a slightly strong factor in influencing recycling behaviour. The multivariate test between groups (type of recycler, agreement with “bin location”, “proximity of facilities” and “environmental benefit”) was statistically significant. The test for Roy’s Largest Root shows “proximity of facilities”, p<0.05 (p = 0.023), and agreement with “bin location”, p<0.05 (p = 0.024) both have a strong influence on frequent recyclers.
Throughout the analysis, the “bin location” variable consistently appears to be significant. The majority of the respondents agree with the location of the recycling facilities, which coincides with the majority indicating they are frequent recyclers. There is a correlation between the occupants who recycle and the variables “proximity of facilities” (p<0.05, p = 0.039) and agreement that the “bins are located in the best position” (p<0.05, p = 0.006). Hypothesis 4 is supported consistently throughout the results showing that location factors are highly influential in both motivating recyclers and preventing the participation of non-recyclers.
Conclusions
The research shows that the existence of the facilities is not the only prerequisite for recycling. Proximity of facilities was a significant variable for motivating individuals to recycle; in support of this, distance of facilities was a significant variable for influencing individuals not to recycle. The results show that there is a link between those who recycle and those who agree with the location of the bins. This coupled with the findings that those who do not recycle want more information on the location of the bins gives strength to the argument of the importance of location. The variables benefits to yourself and absence of an alternative bin are found to be significant as weak factors in motivating to recycle.
The results concur with previous studies that have shown the relationship between perceived inconvenience and actual personal efforts required to recycle reduce participation in recycling schemes [32,41–44]. The results indicate that the building occupants will recycle if they know the location of the facilities and agree with the location of facilities (distance appears to be a key issue). The result shows that advertising could influence the type of recycling behaviour (frequent, occasionally, infrequent) and also supports previous findings, with the logic that advertising would increase the ease of the recycling process.
The findings support previous research in the link between personality traits and environmental behaviour with the two factors, benefits to the environment and the advantages that recycling offers, having a high influence on the behaviour of positive recyclers in the study group. This paper also develops similar findings from other industry areas, including educational establishments and kerbside recycling schemes. Overall, within the office environment, the impact of the facilities appears to have a greater impact on the type of recycler one can be rather than the inbuilt environmental traits. The more inconvenient recycling is considered to be the lower its importance is considered [45]. This applies the findings from previous research to the office environment.
Research in this area has shown that there is a link between recycling rates and perceived or actual inconvenience of facilities. Previously this link has not been established in office environments. This study shows that there is a basis for argument that location factors are a factor in motivating recycling behaviour in office environments.
The paper shows that the office environment does have a profound effect on environmental behaviour. The findings are encouraging, indicating that with careful analysis, facilities can be designed around behaviour to encourage the highest possible recycling rates. The research does show that the idea of one system fits all is not necessarily the way forward. Different organisational cultures may foster different environmental behaviours and thus require variable facilities to maximise participation. On a practical level, recycling facilities should be designed and operated to provide convenience to the building occupant to ensure the highest possible recycling rate is generated. With the use of comingled recycling systems, a significantly increased recycling rate can be targeted; this research has shown that a recycling rate in excess of 60% is economically beneficial. This is attributed to the major sorting of waste items being conducted by the specialists at the central sorting facilities rather than by office occupants. With the rising cost of raw materials (generating an increased value for recycled materials), it is economically advantageous to target a high recycling rate and to reduce contamination at the office stage. The findings would be well supported by further investigation into the affect organisational cultures have on recycling rates.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.