IL DRAMMA DEI TERRENI DI PROPRIETA’ COMUNE

Report
Behavioural attitudes towards
UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI
Waste prevention
and
recycling
FERRARA
Dipartimento di Economia e management
Paola Farinelli, Susanna Mancinelli, Massimiliano Mazzanti
and Francesco Nicolli
Corso di laurea magistrale in
“Economia, mercati e management”
1
The macro issue: Urban waste generation and
landfilling in the EU-27: trends
200
150
100
50
H is to ric a l
P ro je c te d
350
300
(m illio n to n n e s )
Million tonnes waste
250
M u n ic ip a l S o lid W a s te g e n e r a tio n /la n d fillin g
300
Still no
decoupling
250
Estimated
recycling
M u n ic ip a l W a s t e
200
g e n e ra t io n
150
Incineration
100
M u n ic ip a l W a s t e
50
Es tima te d
la n d f ill o f B MW
la n d fillin g
Landfill
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Ye a r
0
Note: Figures from 1980-2004 are data from Eurostat.
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000 BMW
2005
2010
2015
2020
Figures from 2005-2020
are
projections.
= biodegradable
municipal
waste.
Source:
EEA (2007).
Year
EU 27: MSW generated (Kg per capita) and major
relevant policies
Policies focused on recovery and recycling
Waste generation growth rate between 1995/2009. EEA countries
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
Since the waste framework directive in 2008, the definition
of precise target for waste reduction and waste prevention
are becoming part of the policy makers’ agenda, as well as
measures to promote recycling activities.
By 2013 member states had to propose waste prevention
targets and plans
20.0%
0.0%
Malta
Greece
Portugal
Austria
Denmark
Ireland
Latvia
Sweden
Cyprus
Italy
Finland
Luxembourg
France
Netherlands
Poland
Slovakia
Belgium
Spain
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Estonia
Slovenia
Lithuania
-20.0%
Context
 Socio-economics characteristics of both households
and municipalities matters, as well as the role played
by population density, urban concentration, size and
wealth of households (Mazzanti & Zoboli, ERE, 2009).
 However, relatively less attention has been paid, up to
now, to the role of behavioural aspects in households
decisions towards waste prevention and recycling
Università degli studi di Ferrara
5
Ecological Economics
2006
W. Kip Viscusi & Joel Huber &
Jason Bell, 2011.
Promoting Recycling: Private
Values, Social Norms, and
US
Economic Incentives
study
American Economic Review
Behavioural attitudes towards water saving?
Evidence from a study of environmental
actions
Andrew Gilg, , Stewart Barr
Ecological Economics
2014
EU
study
Waste prevention and social preferences: the
role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
Grazia Cecere, Susanna Mancinelli,
Massimiliano Mazzanti
Università degli studi di Ferrara
6
AIM
 Motives which induce people to engage in pro-social
behaviour may go beyond purely economic rewards
 The present work employs a survey administered to
640 Italian households in 2014 (representativeness at
National level)
 to study how consumers cluster in term of waste
performances (generation and recycling) and
motivations (Intrinsic and Extrinsic)
Università degli studi di Ferrara
7
TYPE OF MOTIVATIONS
 Standard economic theory is based on pure extrinsic
motivations.
 However, individual show pro-social behaviour which
goes beyond self interest and egoism.
 Change in paradigm from Homo Oeconomicus to
Oeconomicus Maturus (Frey,1997), which is driven by
a more complex system of motivations.
Università degli studi di Ferrara
8
TYPE OF MOTIVATIONS
 Intrinsic Motivations come from ‘within people’s
attitude’ (e.g. pure altruism, good self-image, or
Andreoni ‘warm glow’)
 Extrinsic Motivations come from ‘outside the person’
(e.g. material rewards, such as tax incentives, peer
pressure or social approval)
 For conceptual background
 Cecere et al (2014), Ecol Econ
Università degli studi di Ferrara
9
MAIN HYPOTHESIS
 Recycling activities are driven both by extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation, but we expect extrinsic to play a
more relevant role (both in term of economic
incentives and social approval).
 Waste prevention behaviour is mainly driven by
intrinsic motivations (social approval, for instance, is
expected to have a lower effect because minimisation
behaviour are often more difficult to observe)
Università degli studi di Ferrara
10
EMPIRICAL STEPS
 STEP 1: Factor analysis to synthetize survey data
around 4 main concepts:
 INTRINSIC MOTIVATION
 EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION
 RECYCLING BEHAVIOUR
 PREVENTION BEHAVIOUR
 STEP 2: Cluster Analysis to see how households can be
grouped according to these four dimensions
Università degli studi di Ferrara
11
1. FACTOR ANALYSIS outcome
Factors
(latent elements)
Intrinsic Motivations
Questions
• Purchase of products with low packaging
• information about environmental problems
• Do you buy products from Green producers / Labels
• Participation to Environmental association
Extrinsic Motivations
• Concerns for own wasting food
• Quantity Recycled with respect to neighbours
• Support economic incentives for recycling
• Attitudes towards people who do not recycle
Università degli studi di Ferrara
12
Factors
sorting waste
(separation of waste being collected)
Questions
Separated Collection (Paper)
Separated Collection (Glass)
Separated Collection (Aluminium)
Separated Collection (Plastic)
Separated Collection (Organic)
Have you increased your share of sep coll in the last 5 years
Recycling of specific materials
Separated Collection (Pharmaceutical prod)
Separated Collection (WEE)
Separated Collection (other hazardous prod)
Prevention/reduction actions
Composting
Refill: Water
Refill: Detergent
Refill: Wine
Refill: Oil
Policy insight: behavioral
actions are correlated
May change case by case
Increased Prevention behavior
through time
% food waste
Variation production of Glass
Variation production of Plastic
Variation production of Paper
13
 Cluster 1 – “Motivated
Recyclers”
2. Cluster analysis
 Cluster 2– “Extrinsically
motivated”
Cluster
1
2
3
5
6
INTRINSIC
-,49073 1,07811
EXTRINSIC
-,36334 -,50957 3,12905 -,39623 1,05004
,56312
-,25736 -,16478
RECY
MINIMISATION ,47586
Here negative values mean
better behavior and
motivations
,13193
,03615
4
,84935
-,46720 -,73501 2,07493
-,08741
,04506
,95090
-,03110 -,69756
,25861
,36126
Socio-demographic features differ across clusters
 Cluster 3 – “Relatively
Intrinsically motivated”
 Cluster 4 –
“Environmentalists”
 Cluster 5 –
 “Reputationally motivated
(mixed intrinsic)”
 Cluster 6 – “Non
environmentalists”
CONCLUSIONS and further research
 Waste
management and waste prevention policies may target
heterogeneous groups
 Motivations and actions are correlated
 Waste behavior clusters appear relevant and often clearly identified – levers
of behavioral change may be adapted and diverse
 Economic instruments may be insufficient for waste prevention
(….voluntereeing may decrease if payments are introduced)
 Issue: how to link economic incentives and intrinsic drivers (case to case
analysis is needed)
Università degli studi di Ferrara
15
Further research
• Cluster on sub samples (robustness)
• Econometric analysis of how waste behavior is
influenced by (i) motivations (ii) policies
• On when and why Recycling and waste prevention

similar documents