Tomorrow's Standard
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Today's Perfect - Tomorrow's Standard The Role of Consumers and The Limits of Policy in Recycling Jonas Kågström Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences Department of Economics Uppsala Doctoral Thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala 2011 Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae 2011:33 Cover: Just as the traditional recycling symbol of three arrows giving chase to each other form a sort of Ouroboros , so too does this illustration from issue nr 14:1896 of the Jugend Magazine by Otto Eckmann (1865 – 1902) represent , to me, the ever cyclic and dynamic nature of the interplay between policy , implementation and citizens. ISSN 1652-6880 ISBN 978-91-576-7568-2 © 2011 Jonas Kågström, Uppsala Print: SLU Service/Repro, Uppsala 2011 2 Today's Perfect - Tomorrow's Standard, The Role of Consumers and The Limits of Policy in Recycling Abstract In this study the mechanisms influencing recycling rates around the system maximum are deliberated. On the one hand, Policies, System design and how Citizens understand the two aforementioned are pitted against each other. This is done in a setting where individual rewards from action are in turn set against the values of the community and the compliance measures/social marketing of recycling companies and policy makers. This is the dynamic setting of this dissertation. In the past much research into recycling has been focused on how to get recycling started. Sweden is in a bit of a different position with recycling levels often being very high in an international comparison. This means other challenges face citizens and policy makers alike. The determinants influencing recycling rates are studied and compared to contemporary research. Policy makers and social marketers that wish to see a system used to its fullest need to understand the determinants that remain to be influenced near the system optimum. The studied recycling system points to a trichotomy of determinants influencing recycling rates. Social or public marketing being one part; the community’s understanding of recycling being a second part, and individual knowledge and understanding forming the third. Successive elimination of potential determinants in a Zwicky box, using statistical analysis, indicates that strengthening individual autonomy and ability to participate efficiently remains as the key to further and sustainable development in the field. The study suggests compliance rates can still be improved upon, even when recycling rates are in excess of 80%, although methods might have to change. Instead of an oft used emphasis on coercive compliance and “scare tactics”, a careful study and propagation of the recycling techniques developed by the many efficient citizens is pivotal. In addition, further improvements in terms of recycling facilitation may offer policy makers a sustainable path to near system optimal recycling rates. Keywords: Recycling, Social marketing, Public marketing, Communitarianism, Austrian Economics, Praxeology, Decision making, Symbolic Regression, Compliance, Self Determination Theory, SDT. Author’s address: Jonas Kågström, HIG, Academy of Education & Economics, Economics Section, S-801 76 Gävle , Sweden E-mail: [email protected] Dedication To my parents, Birgitta & Roland and their unconditional support and belief in me and my prowess – you are forever the yardstick to which I aspire! To my supervisors Bo Öhlmér & Tage Klingberg. Tage, a true “brother in arms” – with whom I have fought many a battle to investigate and make sense of the world around us. With whom I have reasoned, co-read and written so much on so varied a topic – ever with the same warmth and acute intellectual wit. You are singular, you are unique, you are a concept onto its own! Bo, a compass incarnate for my academic journey. No matter how wild the ideas coming from Gävle were, you could always harness them and channel them into a suitable format. No bureaucratic labyrinth was ever made that could resist your gaze! To all the wonderful students whose nimble feet and minds helped gather data when our funds had run out. To all the environmentally friendly citizens of the Gävle region, who have “endured” my surveys and investigations with such composure! May our combined efforts resolve and make recycling a non-issue! 4 Contents 1 The problem at hand – approaching the uncontrollable 13 1.1 Background 13 1.2 The problem in general 15 1.3 Controlling the uncontrollable – the particular problem& my aim – 20 2 De-, in- or ab- ducted? My forthright take on method... 25 2.1 How to measure this, by what count? 25 2.2 Neither in- nor entirely deductive – rather more abductive… 26 2.3 Variables 30 2.4 Research as a series of choices 31 2.5 Level of analysis 32 2.6 Theory generation & the Zwicky box 32 2.7 In the field 34 2.7.1 Checks and balances 34 2.7.2 Our description of reality 40 2.7.3 Internal control 41 2.8 Introducing symbolic regression 43 2.8.1 Enter symbolic regression... 44 2.8.2 The shortcomings of symbolic regression 45 2.8.3 Interpreting the results of symbolic regression 45 2.9 On the chosen method in retrospect… 47 3 High-level theory – communities and individuals, a way to apply Self-determination theory 49 3.1 Self-Determination Theory 51 3.2 Filling the gaps - Communitarianism & Praxeology explained! 55 3.3 Communitarianism 58 3.3.1 Communitarianism – defined 58 3.3.2 Three types of society 61 3.3.3 Attaining societal compliance through Moral voice 62 3.3.4 Different tones of voice 65 3.4 Praxeology - an axiom revisited 69 3.4.1 Praxeology – defined 69 3.4.2 Understanding of the situation at hand 70 3.4.3 Search for Improvement 71 3.4.4 Focus on the future 71 3.4.5 Perceived possibility of improvement 72 3.4.6 Choice of means with respect to goal 72 3.4.7 Decisions made on ordinal basis 73 3.4.8 Marginal utility of additional action 74 3.4.9 Effects of praxeology on decision-making 75 3.4.10 Praxeology – in context 77 3.4.11 A combined model 78 3.4.12 Assumptions on compliance rates and populations 79 3.4.13 The contributions of Communitarianism & Praxeology 82 3.4.14 The Trilemma of recycling 87 3.4.15 Final remarks on the epistemological basis of this thesis 89 4 Chasing determinants - Recycling in an international context 91 4.1 Knowledge and education – what individuals know about recycling 93 4.1.1 Formal education 93 4.1.2 Recycling knowledge 94 4.1.3 Attitudes towards recycling – what individuals think of recycling96 4.2 Priority & position of recycling in daily life – how individuals assess the necessity of recycling 99 4.2.1 Sources of concern – or Priority of recycling 99 4.2.2 Gender 100 4.2.3 Politics 101 4.2.4 Time 102 4.2.5 Experience 103 4.3 Individual physical determinants 105 4.3.1 Type and amount of recycling 105 4.3.2 Space at home 107 4.3.3 Tangible value of waste & recycling 108 5 Recycling in Sweden 111 5.1 A brief history of origins of recycling in Sweden 111 5.2 Recycling in the Gävle region 116 5.2.1 Recycling fractions (in the 2009 version of the system) 117 5.3 Practical day to day recycling in the Gävle region 118 5.3.1 Scenario 1 – detached house 118 5.3.2 Scenario 2 – condo/flat 118 5.4 Recycling statistics for Sweden and the Gävle region 119 6 Results 123 6.1 Local recycling in the field - a summary of field data 2002-2008 123 6 6.2 The order and living arrangements interview survey 2003 126 6.3 The pre-compost determinant survey 2003 129 6.3.1 The pre-compost setting 129 6.3.2 Pair wise determinant comparison 133 6.3.3 The pre-compost cluster analysis 135 6.4 The producer responsibility interview and policy study 2003-04 138 6.5 The collection fees study – 2004 140 6.6 The food supply chain explorative survey 2004 144 6.7 The SME and ecological services interview study 2004 145 6.8 The miscreant study or the TPB evaluation and usefulness studies 147 6.9 Coordinated waste – on waste management in real life (2005) 150 6.10 Recycling and recycling determinants in the pre- and post-compost recycling setting. 155 6.10.1 The post-compost determinant factor analysis 155 6.10.2 Factor analysis of the non-composting citizens 156 6.10.3 The composting factor analysis 158 6.10.4 “The whole jolly lot” – the post-compost setting as a transitional period. 159 6.10.5 The post-compost non-composter cluster 163 6.10.6 General observations among the non-composting households164 6.10.7 Non-composting tenant clusters 165 6.10.8 Non-composting villa clusters 167 6.11 The post-compost composter setting 169 6.11.1 Composting tenants 170 6.11.2 Composting villas 173 6.11.3 Summarising the post-compost setting 176 6.12 Residual findings – dead ends 182 6.13 The compost informer interview study 2007 184 6.13.1 Informer vs controller vs salesman 184 6.13.2 Biology vs Human Ecology 187 6.13.3 Routine vs Ad Hoc 189 6.13.4 Professional vs Amateur 189 6.13.5 Money vs Idealism 190 6.13.6 Detached houses vs tenants 191 6.13.7 Comparing emphasis and perception 193 6.14 The double “value-action gap” surveys 2001/02 194 6.15 The 2007 follow up 196 6.16 Re-run using symbolic regression 202 6.17 Analysis of tested determinants & their role in a morphological analysis204 6.17.1 Waste fractions 204 6.17.2 Demographic determinants 206 6.17.3 Ethniticity 206 6.17.4 Gender 206 6.17.5 Age 206 6.17.6 Occupation 207 6.17.7 Household size 207 6.17.8 Income 207 6.17.9 Home ownership 207 6.17.10 Order in the recycling room 208 6.17.11 Knowledge 208 6.18 Analysing the empirical results using an extensive Zwicky box/Morphological analysis 208 6.18.1 Initial observations 208 6.18.2 The 91-100% bracket 210 6.18.3