Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Willingness to engage in a pro-environmental behavior: An analysis of e-waste

recycling based on a national survey of U.S. households
Jean-Daniel M. Saphores a,b,∗ , Oladele A. Ogunseitan c,1 , Andrew A. Shapiro d,2
a
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
b
Planning, Policy & Design Department, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
c
Program in Public Health and School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
d
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Using concepts from environmental psychology and economics, we investigate U.S. households’ willing-
Received 12 January 2011 ness to engage in a form of pro-environmental behavior: recycling electronic waste (e-waste) at drop-off
Received in revised form locations. We rely on rich dataset from a 2006 national survey of U.S. households (N = 2136). Our internal
10 December 2011
variables include a modified version of the New Ecological Paradigm scale, a moral norm scale based
Accepted 12 December 2011
on Schwartz’s norm-activation model, and indicators of social pressure for recycling. External variables
consist of detailed socio-demographic characteristics. Our logit model shows that external variables do
Keywords:
not help characterizing people with e-waste recycling experience, except that they tend to have larger
Recycling behavior
Drop-off recycling
families or to be over 60 years old. However, knowing that e-waste contains potentially toxic materials,
Electronic waste recycling conventional materials at work or at school, and especially having strong moral norms helps
Generalized ordered logit explain e-waste recycling behavior. Using a generalized ordered logit model, we then show that the most
Factor analysis important variables for explaining household willingness to recycle e-waste are internal variables, fol-
lowed by recycling convenience, knowledge of the potential toxicity of e-waste, prior e-waste recycling
experience, as well as gender and marital status; education, age, and ethnicity play only a minor role,
while knowledge of e-waste laws, availability of curbside recycling for domestic waste, and income are
not statistically significant. Our results suggest that e-waste recycling can be stimulated by promoting
moral norms, educating the public about the benefits of recycling e-waste, and making e-waste recycling
more convenient but other measures will likely be necessary to tackle the e-waste problem.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The need to better understand what motivates people to adopt
pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) has taken a new urgency with
the increasing emphasis on sustainability. Because of its sheer
volume, recycling household waste is an important form of pro-
environmental behavior and it has been extensively studied. Yet
not all household wastes are alike and electronic waste (e-waste;
defined as all broken, obsolete, or out of fashion products contain-
ing a circuit board that reach the waste stream) has only received
limited attention so far in spite of being the fastest growing segment
of household waste (U.S. EPA, 2009): in 2008, Americans recycled
∗ Corresponding author at: Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. Tel.: +1 949 824 7334.
E-mail addresses: saphores@uci.edu (J.-D.M. Saphores),
Oladele.Ogunseitan@uci.edu (O.A. Ogunseitan), aashapir@uci.edu (A.A. Shapiro).
1
Tel.: +1 949 824 6350.
2
Tel.: +1 818 393 7311.
less than 14% of the 2.87 million metric tons of e-waste they gener-
ated, and they are storing larger volumes of e-waste than previously
estimated by the EPA (Saphores et al., 2009).
The exponential growth of e-waste may further be compounded
by a reduction of the useful life of existing devices driven by the
ever faster release of products with new features. Moreover, a
recent review of the recycling literature (Sidique et al., 2010) shows
that drop-off recycling has been largely ignored by academics. This
is unfortunate because drop-off recycling is easier to implement
than take-back or other programs involving manufacturers and the
required facilities are typically less expensive to operate than curb-
side collection programs. As noted by Bouvier and Wagner (2011),
drop-off recycling is currently by far the most common method for
collecting e-waste from households in the United States.
In this context, our paper makes three contributions based on
a national survey of U.S. households: first, we characterize peo-
ple who have recycled e-waste; second, we analyze households’
willingness to recycle e-waste at drop-off centers; and third, we
contribute to the empirical literature that brings together eco-
nomics and environmental psychology by incorporating in our

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.12.003
50 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63
models concepts from these two disciplines to better understand
household actual and intended behavior.
In addition to saving valuable landfill space and to creating jobs,
properly recycling e-waste is compelling for at least three reasons.
The first one is its impact on resources. The electronics industry uses
a significant percentage of the world’s production of precious and
special metals. In 2007, for example, the manufacturing of mobile
phones and personal computers consumed 3% of the world’s min-
ing production of gold and silver. Moreover, the electronics industry
as a whole consumed 13% of the world’s production of palladium,
15% of the cobalt, and 80% of the indium and of the ruthenium
(UNEP, 2009). Since many special metals are produced by a hand-
ful of countries (USGS, 2010), recycling them from e-waste is an
insurance against the perils of market power (market power could
lead to an increase in the price of a metal above its competitive
value, resulting in a loss of welfare).
The second reason for recycling e-waste is to prevent the release
in the environment of toxic materials like cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, lead, mercury, and brominated flame-retardants. Lead,
for example, can damage children’s nervous system and adults’
reproductive system (U.S. EPA, 2010a). Mercury (in the form of
methylmercury) can interfere with the development of babies’
brains (U.S. EPA, 2010b). Some flame retardants have been shown
to be toxic and mutagenic, and they have been detected in the envi-
ronment far from where they are produced or used (Birnbaum and
Staskal, 2004). Moreover, links between the presence of toxic mate-
rials in the environment and the improper processing of e-waste
have recently been established in China and India (Sepulveda et al.,
2010).
The third reason is that, when done right, recycling metals in
e-waste contributes to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases,
which is a pure public good (i.e., a good that is non-excludable
and non-rival so everyone consumes the same amount). Indeed,
recycling these metals has a smaller carbon footprint than pro-
ducing them from virgin material. For example, recycling 1 kg of
aluminum avoids generating 2 kg of CO2 , 11 g of SO2 , and 1.3 kg of
bauxite residue (UNEP, 2009).
In spite of these benefits, only a fraction of generated e-waste
is recycled. In the United States, for example, estimated recycling
rates in 2007 were 18% for televisions and computer products, and
only 10% for cell phones (U.S. EPA, 2008). In the EU, official recy-
cling and reuse percentages are much higher, ranging from 60%
to 90% depending on the product category (Eurostat, 2011) but
large volume of collected e-waste destined for recycling are illegally
exported to developing countries (Greenpeace, 2009). Several rea-
sons explain this situation: (1) e-waste laws are not enforced or are
inadequate (Basel Action Network, 2010); (2) incentives to recycle
e-waste are insufficient; (3) recycling programs are not adequate;
and (4) households are not sufficiently aware of the risks linked to
the improper disposal of e-waste or they do not know where to
safely dispose of e-waste. We focus here on e-waste recycling by
households because understanding consumer behavior is central
to improving e-waste collection.
2. Background
2.1. Social norms, beliefs, and recycling behavior
As highlighted in Clark et al. (2003), a number of researchers
have drawn on environmental psychology to analyze internal
(psychological) variables such as beliefs, attitudes, or norms as
underlying motivations for individual behavior; as a result, their
policy recommendations typically include providing information,
trying to persuade, or instilling guilt.
Various models have been proposed to study pro-
environmental behaviors (PEB). The two most popular ones,
which serve as a starting point for several other theories, are
Schwartz’s altruism model (Schwartz, 1970, 1973, 1977; Vining
and Ebreo, 1990; Guagnano et al., 1995), which explains conserva-
tion efforts by favorable personal norms; and the theory of planned
behavior (TPB), which relies on the assumption that attitudes have
a causal impact on behaviors via behavioral intentions (Ajzen and
Madden, 1986; Ajzen, 1988, 1991; Thøgersen, 1994; Boldero, 1995;
Taylor and Todd, 1995). Other approaches include, for example, the
value–attitude–behavior model (McCarty and Shrum, 1994), which
shows that attitudes and beliefs mediate between abstract values
and specific behaviors; operant conditioning theories, which
explore how behavior can be altered by providing informational
feedback, rewards or penalties (e.g., see Katzev and Mishima,
1992; Werner et al., 1995); or self-regulation theory (Sansone
et al., 1992), which proposes that people regulate their behavior
by changing related cognitions, emotions, or perceptions (Werner
and Makela, 1998).
In this paper, we rely on the theories of norm-activation and
value-belief-norms (VBN) because they are well-accepted, empir-
ically supported, and often invoked in rational choice models
(Turaga et al., 2010). Norm-activation theory originated with the
theory of moral decision-making (Schwartz, 1970, 1973, 1977). Ini-
tially crafted to explain helping behavior, it was extended to explain
general altruistic behavior, including PEB. According to Schwartz,
altruistic behavior arises from situation-specific personal norms
that reflect self-expectations derived from shared norms. For altru-
istic behavior to result from personal norms, two criteria must
be met: a person must be aware that specific actions (or inac-
tions) have consequences for the well-being of others (awareness
of consequences, AC); and he must ascribe responsibility for conse-
quences of those actions (ascription of responsibility, AR). The joint
presence of AC and AR in a specific situation enables pertinent per-
sonal norms to motivate behavior, but this is not sufficient because
a person may deny his responsibility to act or the impacts of his
actions on others.
Schwartz’ norm-activation theory was generalized by Stern
et al. (1999), who proposed a value-belief-norms (VBN) theory that
incorporates egoistic (i.e., based on self interest) and biospheric (i.e.,
that value other species) value orientations into personal norms
in addition to altruistic values. According to Stern et al. (1999),
personal norms are activated when a person believes that envi-
ronmental conditions have consequences (AC) and that they can
take action (AR) to reduce those consequences. Moreover, the VBN
theory assumes that AC and AR beliefs are shaped by general beliefs
about human–environment interactions, such as the New Environ-
mental Paradigm (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap et al., 2000)
and stable basic human values (Schwartz, 1994).
2.2. Economics and pro-environmental behavior
By contrast, in economics, pro-environmental behavior has typ-
ically been modeled as the private provision of public goods. In
the standard microeconomics model, individuals are driven by
egoistic motivations and act to maximize their utility from con-
sumption given budget constraints. Economists mostly focus on
external variables such as prices and convenience so their policy
recommendations typically involve changing monetary incentives
or regulations. In this framework, the incentive to free-ride (since
everyone has access to the same amount of a public good whether
they contribute or not) leads to a limited production of public goods.
However, empirical data shows that people make more voluntary
contributions for public goods than implied by the standard theory
(Piliavin and Charng, 1990). In response, two strands have appeared
in the literature to reconcile theory with empirical evidence.
 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63
First, Andreoni (1990) extended the standard economic frame-
work by incorporating a “warm glow” benefit from contributing to a
public good in addition to the utility from consuming it. Subsequent
papers that built on that framework proposed prestige (Harbaugh,
1998) and social approval (Rege, 2004) to explain the source of
private benefits from contributing to public goods.
In a second strand of the literature that started to bridge the
divide between environmental psychology and economics, Brekke
et al. (2003) proposed that people contributing to a public good
are motivated by moral “calculus” rather than pure self-interest. In
their model, people derive benefits from being perceived as socially
responsible and compare the benefits of maintaining a socially
responsible image with the costs of doing so in order to find the
optimal level of voluntary efforts. Nyborg et al. (2006) expanded
their framework by incorporating insights from Schwartz’ norm-
activation model. In their model of an individual’s decision to
purchase green products, self-image depends both on the social
external benefits of contributing to a public good and on the
perception that buying green products is an individual responsi-
bility, which is based on internalized moral norms. Their empirical
application to green electricity programs in Sweden supports the
hypothesis that perceived responsibility and perceived external
benefits are important for explaining households’ decision to par-
ticipate.
Our paper builds on both environmental psychology and eco-
nomics as we consider both external and internal variables to
better explain the determinants of pro-environmental behavior.
For recent examples of this line of research, see Clark et al. (2003)
or Hage et al. (2009) and the references therein.
2.3. Convenience and knowledge
Several studies have shown that perceived inconvenience
reduces participation in recycling activities (DeYoung, 1990;
Boldero, 1995; Ewing, 2001; Domina and Koch, 2002; Do Valle et al.,
2004). Inconvenience typically takes two forms: first, it can be asso-
ciated with lack of storage space, excessive time requirements, or
perceived risks associated with recycling; second, it can require
bringing recyclables to a drop-off location. Published papers con-
sistently indicate that curbside recycling schemes, which are more
convenient, have higher participation rates than recycling at drop-
off locations (Vining and Ebreo, 1992; Boldero, 1995; Domina and
Koch, 2002; Woodard et al., 2005).
In addition to convenience, the recycling literature consistently
reports an increasing relationship between public participation
and specific knowledge of a recycling scheme (Vining and Ebreo,
1990; Gamba and Oskamp, 1994; Scott, 1999; Do Valle et al.,
2004). Likewise, specific knowledge of the environmental costs
from not recycling (akin to the awareness of consequences in
Schwartz’ framework) has been shown to foster recycling (Hopper
and Nielsen, 1991; Vining and Ebreo, 1992; Bratt, 1999; Ewing,
2001). Conversely, previous research suggests that there is only a
weak relationship between general concerns for the environment
and recycling (Vining and Ebreo, 1992; Gamba and Oskamp, 1994;
Hornik et al., 1995; Scott, 1999; Domina and Koch, 2002). Further-
more, given the public good dimension of recycling, Bratt (1999)
argues that when the environmental impacts of recycling are com-
municated to the public, collective benefits should be emphasized
rather than the consequences of individual behavior.
2.4. Recycling at drop-off centers
To contextualize our results we reviewed the empirical recycling
literature, starting first with published studies concerned with the
effectiveness of drop-off recycling.
51
In an early paper, Tiller et al. (1997) conducted a contingent val-
uation to quantify household willingness to pay (WTP) to establish
drop-off recycling programs in a rural/suburban area of Tennessee.
After analyzing 481 in-person interviews, they reported that WTP
depends on age, education, attitudes toward recycling, and house-
hold income. Two other papers (Speirs and Tucker, 2001; Snyder
et al., 2004) studied drop-off recycling of conventional household
wastes, the first in south-west Scotland and the second in Ohio,
but they did not estimate models to explain drop-off use. More
recently, Sidique et al. (2010) analyzed data from 356 in-person
interviews at eight drop-off recycling sites around Lansing, Michi-
gan. Using a Poisson model to explain the number of visits to these
sites, they found that location, recycling convenience, familiarity
with recycling and social pressure are important drivers of recy-
cling behavior. In addition, age, education, income and household
size were statistically significant.
We found only two papers dealing with e-waste recycling at
drop-off centers. The first one is Saphores et al. (2006), who ana-
lyzed the willingness of California households to recycle e-waste
at drop-off centers based on 265 respondents to a mail survey.
They found that gender, education, convenience (having a recy-
cling center within 5 miles), and environmental beliefs, but neither
income nor political affiliation, are useful for explaining household
willingness to drop-off e-waste at recycling centers. The second
paper (Bouvier and Wagner, 2011) examined the impact of col-
lection facility attributes (recycling fees, days open, and driving
distance) on the collection rate of household computer monitors
and televisions in 92 municipal facilities located in the U.S. state of
Maine. Using pairwise correlation tests, they found that the num-
ber of items collected decreases with recycling fees and increases
with the number of days open, but driving distance did not seem
to matter to households.
2.5. Recycling e-waste
In addition, several recent studies have focused on e-waste
recycling in different parts of the world. In a 2005 paper, Darby
and Obara assessed consumer attitudes toward the disposal of
small waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in Cardiff,
Wales, based on a mail survey and semi-structured interviews. They
found that small WEEE items are not commonly recycled. More-
over, because of inconvenient transportation options lower income
households are less likely to recycle small WEEE items, and they
are more likely to extend the useful life of these items. However,
households who recycle regularly common materials at the curb
are more likely to bring small WEEE items to collection sites.
In their study of battery recycling in Switzerland, Hansmann
et al. (2006) proposed a model of recycling behavior based on Sykes
and Matza’s (1957) Neutralization theory to explain inconsistencies
between social norms, personal attitudes, and individual behavior.
Their analysis of data from 608 households collected via a mail sur-
vey relied on multivariate regression and analysis of covariance.
They found that recycling knowledge and attitudes toward recy-
cling are positively related to battery recycling, while attitudes
toward waste disposal, trust in waste management authorities, and
level of battery consumption are not statistically significant.
Very recently, Wang et al. (2011) investigated the attitudes of
Beijing residents toward e-waste recycling using a survey admin-
istered by neighborhood organizations. Results of their logistic
regression model of 957 respondents indicate that recycling con-
venience, home ownership, recycling habits, and compensation for
recycling are statistically significant for explaining willingness to
recycle e-waste but family size, education, income, and knowledge
of environmental laws are not.
In the last couple of years, cell phones recycling has attracted
increasing attention from researchers. Using data from 115
52 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63
survey respondents, Nnorom et al. (2009) investigated the will-
ingness of Nigerian consumers to participate in a waste phone
recycling program and their willingness to pay for more envi-
ronmentally friendly cell phones. Approximately 65% of their
respondents were willing to drop-off obsolete electronics at a
nearby recycling facility and half were willing to pay a 20% premium
for an environmentally friendlier cell phone.
Jang and Kim (2010) focused instead on cell phones use, reuse,
and recycling in Korea based on a survey of 1090 consumers, site
visits to e-waste recycling facilities, as well as interviews with
representatives from mobile phone companies and environmental
regulators. They found that from 2000 to 2007 only approximately
5 million cell phones out of the 14.5 million retired annually were
collected by mobile phone companies and cell phone producers. As
a result, they estimated that 28 million used and broken cell phones
were stored by households by the end of 2006. They recommended
more active and more convenient collection programs to collect
used cell phones and for a better recycling infrastructure.
2.6. Socio-economic and demographic variables
Since relatively few published studies focus either on recy-
cling e-waste or on recycling at drop-off locations, we reviewed
papers dealing with conventional household recyclables to select
our explanatory variables. We found that the most commonly con-
sidered variables are gender, age, income, and education. As noted
in Do Valle et al. (2004) or Hansmann et al. (2006), findings appear
to be inconsistent. Moreover, when socio-demographic variables
are statistically significant their explanatory power tends to be
small (Hornik et al., 1995).
Let us start with gender. According to Schultz et al. (1995) and
Johnson et al. (2004), women are more likely to recycle, but Gamba
and Oskamp (1994), Werner and Makela (1998), Domina and Koch
(2002), or Do Valle et al. (2004) detected no relationship between
gender and recycling.
Several studies suggest that older people are more likely to recy-
cle (Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Derksen and Gartrell, 1993; Margai,
1997; Scott, 1999; Ewing, 2001) but others found no statistically
significant relationship between age and recycling (Oskamp et al.,
1991; Gamba and Oskamp, 1994; Corral-Verdugo, 1997; Werner
and Makela, 1998). Domina and Koch (2002) argued that this
apparent discrepancy may result from a generational effect and
Hansmann et al. (2006) further suggest that differences between
countries may play a role.
A number of authors (e.g., Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Oskamp et al.,
1991; Gamba and Oskamp, 1994; Domina and Koch, 2002) also
reported that households with a higher income are more likely to
recycle, but others disagreed (Derksen and Gartrell, 1993; Scott,
1999; Do Valle et al., 2004).
Likewise, the impact of education is ambiguous: some studies
suggested that more education fosters recycling (e.g., see Vining
and Ebreo, 1990; Folz and Hazlett, 1991; Lansana, 1992; Derksen
and Gartrell, 1993; Owens et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2004) but not
others (Gamba and Oskamp, 1994; Werner and Makela, 1998; Do
Valle et al., 2004; Meneses and Palacio, 2005).
Family size, ethnicity, dwelling type/home ownership, and
political beliefs have also received some attention. The relationship
between household size and recycling behavior does not appear to
have been widely studied even though we expect household size
to be correlated with consumption and hence waste generation.
Scott (1999) did not detect such a relationship, but McQuaid and
Murdoch (1996), Domina and Koch (2002), and Johnson et al. (2004)
found that larger families are more likely to recycle.
The link between ethnicity and recycling has received less atten-
tion. In the U.S., Johnson et al. (2004) concluded that Blacks and
foreign-born Latinos are less likely to recycle than Whites. In their
study of Preston, Lancashire, Perry and Williams (2007) reported
that British Indians are more likely to participate in recycling than
their White British counterparts, with significant differences in atti-
tudes and participation levels for first and second/third generation
ethnic minorities.
Some research also suggests a positive association between res-
idence type and recycling. According to Granzin and Olsen (1991),
recyclers who are not homeowners are more likely to rent a house
than an apartment, which may suggest that having more storage
space helps recycling.
Finally, Johnson et al. (2004) reported that liberals are signifi-
cantly more likely than others to recycle in their study of the 2000
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. Owen and
Videras (2007) confirmed that result using a dataset that covers
14 OECD regions, and they further showed that religious beliefs
play a (small) role in PEB.
2.7. Model variables
A large number of studies found that norms are important for
explaining household recycling behavior (see Turaga et al., 2010
for references). However, the evidence is mixed on the impact of
most other common explanatory variables. In particular, the effect
of many socio-economic and demographic variables is ambiguous.
This apparent dissonance may reflect changes in attitudes over time
as more environmentally friendly norms have become internal-
ized, cohort effects, evolving attitudes toward recycling (Bamberg,
2003), local particularities (since many published papers studied
local recycling programs), sampling idiosyncrasies, the use of dif-
ferent explanatory variables, or methodological limitations (some
older papers did not rely on multivariate models). As indicated
below, our study relies on a sample of over 2000 respondents whose
socio-economic characteristics were known ahead of time to the
firm that administered our survey, which helped to better match
our respondents with the U.S. population and guarantees better
socio-economic data.
We therefore decided to consider general attitudes toward the
environment, norms, convenience, the availability of storage space,
as well as a broad range of socio-economic variables in order to
explain experience with e-waste recycling and household willing-
ness to recycle e-waste at drop-off centers.
3. Data
Our unique dataset was collected via an Internet-based survey
of a random subset of Knowledge Networks’ (KN) online research
panel, which is approximately 43,000 strong. Unlike typical Inter-
net research that rely on self-selected respondents, KN has built
a research panel representative of the U.S. population based on a
sampling frame that includes both listed and unlisted numbers, and
is not limited to current Web users or computer owners.
Indeed, prospective panel members are recruited by telephone
using random digit dialing (RDD) sampling techniques that meet
the Federal Government’s quality standards for RDD surveys. Once
a selected household accepts to join KN’s panel, its members are
asked to provide socio-economic and demographic information
such as gender, age, race, income, and education. This core infor-
mation, which is updated annually, is then available for subsequent
surveys.
If needed, household members are provided with a free WebTV
and Internet access in exchange for taking part in on-line sur-
veys. Households who already have a home computer and Internet
access are asked to answer surveys using their own equipment in
exchange for points redeemable for cash. Incentive points may also
be offered to improve the response rates of longer surveys. Panel
 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63
members need to complete at least one of every six surveys they are
assigned, or they are dropped from KN’s panel, but they are never
asked to complete more than four surveys per month.
Randomly selected panel members are notified by mail several
days prior to taking an on-line survey. When the questionnaire
is available on-line, they receive an email. This approach per-
mits fielding survey quickly and economically; it also allows
respondents to answer survey questions at their convenience.
Email reminders are sent to non-respondents, followed by a
reminder phone call after at least three days. For more details, see
http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/knpanel/index.html.
After getting feedback on a draft survey instrument from col-
leagues and students and modifying our survey instrument, we
asked Knowledge Networks to administer a pilot survey. This was
done from February 15 to February 20, 2006; 110 of 167 panelists
answered our questions. Based on their feedback, a revised survey
was fielded from March 28 to April 7, 2006; this time 2,136 of 3,048
panelists answered our survey for a response rate of 70.1%, which
is similar to other on-line surveys conducted by KN.
Our survey had four parts. The first part asked about envi-
ronmental attitudes and involvement with non-governmental
organizations. The second part gathered information about house-
hold trash and recycling activities. In the third part, we asked about
willingness to bring e-waste to drop-off recycling centers, the dan-
gers of dumping e-waste, and knowledge of e-waste laws. The last
part asked additional demographic questions to better understand
the beliefs and behavior of various ethnic groups.
Table 1 shows how our respondents’ key socio-demographic
characteristics compared with U.S. demographic data from the
2006 Community Survey. Our respondents are slightly older (over
55 years), more likely to be married and to have children under
18 at home. In addition, we note that African Americans and His-
panics are under-represented. Although our respondents tend to
have more years of formal education, high income earners are
under-represented. Moreover, our respondents are more likely to
Table 1
Respondents selected demographic characteristics versus 2006 census estimates.
Characteristic This survey (2136 respondents)
Age 18–24: 8.1%; 45–54: 18.6%
25–34: 18.1%; 55–64: 17.5%
35–44: 19.5%; ≥65: 18.3.9%
Marital status Married: 58.0%: Divorced: 12.5%
Widowed: 4.8%; Never married: 22.9%
Separated: 1.8%
Household size 1: 20.6%; 2: 38.8%; 3: 17.2%
4 or more: 23.3%
Number of children under 18 in household 0: 72.3%; 1 or more: 27.7%
Ethnicity White: 77.7%; Hispanic: 7.3%
African-American: 8.5%;
Other: 6.5%
Education Less than high school: 11.4%
High school: 33.3%
Some college: 29.5%
Bachelor’s or higher: 25.7%
Household income (in 1000 of $) <25: 26.5%; 75–99.9: 11.6%
25–49.9: 32.8%; 100–149.9: 6.6%
50–74.9: 19.8%; ≥150: 2.8%
Home ownership Own: 69.9%; Rent: 30.1%
Type of dwelling Single-family home: 67.2%
Duplex: 5.5%; Mobile home: 7.9%
Apart./Condo: 17.6%; Other: 1.8%
Vehicle availability 94.3% of respondents have a vehicle available for their use.
Source of the census data: selected social characteristics in the United States: 2006 – American community survey 1-year estimates (http://factfinder.census.gov/).
♣: The census reports a slightly different age breakdown compared to our survey (15–19 and 20–24 instead of 18–24).
53
own their home and to have access to a vehicle. Overall, how-
ever, these differences are relatively minor and our large sample
exhibits enough variability to explain e-waste recycling experience
and willingness to recycle e-waste at drop-off centers in the United
States.
To capture our respondents’ environmental beliefs, we asked
them to complete a ten-item modified New Ecological Paradigm
(NEP) scale (Dunlap et al., 2000) that consists of 10 items from
the original 15-item list. These questions, which use a five-point
Likert response scale, are shown in Table 2. Using 5 pairs of
statements, this modified scale investigates five environmental
concerns: the limits of growth (items 1 and 6); the idea that humans
are exempt from the constraints of nature (items 2 and 9); anti-
anthropocentrism (items 3 and 7); the fragility of nature’s balance
(items 4 and 8); and the possibility of an ecological crisis (items 5
and 10). We excluded five items from the original scale based on
low item–total correlations reported in previous studies (Dunlap
et al., 2000; Hawcroft and Milfont, 2010).
We also asked our respondents to complete a seven-item altru-
ism/moral norm scale using the same five-point Likert response
scale as for the NEP (see Table 3). This scale, which was devel-
oped specifically for this research, is inspired from Schwartz’
norm-activation model (1970, 1977). Our scale incorporates four
questions designed to capture AC (items 1–4 in Table 3), two to
represent AR (items 5 and 6), and one statement that refers to a
personal moral norm for recycling (item 7).
4. Methods
After analyzing selected survey questions using simple statis-
tical tests, we performed a factor analysis (FA; Thompson, 2004)
in order to condense the ten survey questions related to the NEP
(see Table 2) and the seven questions related to moral norms (see
Table 3) into a small set of factors. To test the adequacy of our
results, we performed some standard tests summarized in the notes
2006 census estimates
♣ 20–24: 9.7%; 45–54: 20.0%
25–34: 18.4%; 55–64: 14.6%
35–44: 20.2%; ≥65: 17.1%
Married: 50.4%: Divorced: 10.5%
Widowed: 6.4%; Never married: 30.5%
Separated: 2.3%
1: 27.3%; 2: 33.2%; 3: 16.0%
4 or more: 23.6%
0: 65.4%; 1 or more: 34.6%
White: 66.2%; Hispanic: 14.8%
African-American: 12.2%;
Other: 6.9%
Less than high school: 15.9%
High school: 30.2%
Some college: 26.9%
Bachelor’s or higher: 27.0%
<25: 17.5%; 75–99.9: 14.3%
25–49.9: 24.7%; 100–149.9: 13.7%
50–74.9: 20.9%; ≥150: 9.0%
Own: 67.3%; Rent: 32.7%
Single-family home: 67.1%
Duplex: 4.0%; Mobile home: 6.9%
Apart./Condo: 21.8%; Other: 0.1%
91.2% of households have a vehicle available for their use.
54 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63

Table 2
Percentage distribution and factor loadings for New Ecological Paradigm (NEPn) items.

Item SA MA U MD SD r Factor loading

1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people the 15.1% 21.4% 35.6% 17.0% 10.9% 0.582 0.5212
earth can support.
2 Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the 8.6% 24.2% 35.0% 20.7% 11.5% 0.445 0.3936
earth unlivable.
3 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. 48.0% 28.7% 9.6% 9.0% 4.8% 0.605 0.5389
4 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the 4.1% 13.8% 26.4% 31.3% 24.4% 0.641 0.5878
impacts of modern industrial nations.
5 The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has 6.6% 18.9% 29.1% 24.3% 21.0% 0.697 0.6331
been greatly exaggerated.
6 The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and 21.2% 31.9% 20.7% 18.5% 7.7% 0.605 0.5391
resources.
7 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. 16.2% 20.8% 18.3% 22.9% 21.8% 0.579 0.4889
8 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset 29.5% 38.1% 18.3% 11.4% 2.8% 0.678 0.6271
9 Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature 4.4% 20.3% 29.2% 24.2% 21.9% 0.238 0.2062
works to be able to control it.
10 If things continue on their present course, we will soon 23.8% 31.9% 27.5% 10.6% 6.2% 0.731 0.6777
experience a major ecological catastrophe.

Notes:
1. SA, MA, U, MD, SD refer respectively to “strongly agree”, “mildly agree”, “unsure”, “mildly disagree”, and “strongly disagree”.
2. “r” designates the inter-item correlation, i.e., the correlation between an item and NPEn. All inter-item correlations are statistically significant (p < 0.01).
3. To select the number of factors to consider (only one here), we adopted the Kaiser criterion (i.e., we retained only factors corresponding to eigenvalues greater than 1).
4. After calculating the NEPn factor using the “loadings” in the last column above, we normalized it so it is between 0 and 1 where 1 indicates strong pro-environmental
attitudes.
5. The NEPn factor passes common specification tests (Thompson, 2004). The Bartlett test for sphericity strongly rejects the null hypothesis that these 10 items are not
correlated (p < 0.001), and the Kaiser–Meyer Olkin statistics (KMO = 0.837 here) indicates that correlations are not excessive (KMO ranges between 0 and 1 and should be at
least 0.6). Cronbach’s alpha, which measures factor reliability, is 0.783, which suggests that NEPn is a reliable factor (a value ≥0.7 is typically required).
6. NEPn explains 28.9% of the variance of constituting items, which is similar to previous studies.

Table 3
Percentage distribution and factor loadings for moral norm (MORn) items.

Item SA MA U MD SD r Factor loading

1 Recycling substantially reduces the use of landfills 42.9% 34.0% 16.6% 4.2% 2.4% 0.674 0.5839
2 Recycling conserves natural resources 47.3% 35.9% 13.3% 1.6% 1.9% 0.720 0.6516
3 Recycling won’t make much difference in the quality of the 2.7% 6.6% 15.4% 33.9% 41.4% 0.735 0.6281
environment
4 Recycling creates jobs 27.8% 43.8% 23.8% 2.9% 1.6% 0.585 0.5202
5 Households like mine should not be blamed for environmental 12.5% 22.7% 25.0% 25.5% 14.3% 0.343 0.2463
problems caused by excessive trash generation
6 My responsibility is to provide only for my family and myself 9.6% 15.5% 13.9% 36.0% 25.0% 0.466 0.3431
7 Given increasing environmental problems with solid waste, I 36.0% 34.1% 17.6% 8.8% 3.5% 0.731 0.5926
feel a moral obligation to recycle

Notes:
1. SA, MA, U, MD, SD refer respectively to “strongly agree”, “mildly agree”, “unsure”, “mildly disagree”, and “strongly disagree”.
2. “r” designates the inter-item correlation, i.e., the correlation between an item and MORn. Inter-item correlations are all statistically significant (p < 0.01).
3. To select the number of factors to consider, we relied on the Kaiser criterion (i.e., we retained only factors corresponding to eigenvalues greater than 1).
4. After calculating the moral norm factor using the coefficients (“loadings”) in the last column above, we normalized it so it is between 0 and 1 where 1 indicates strong
pro-recycling attitudes.
5. The moral norm factor also passes common specification tests (Thompson, 2004). The Bartlett test for sphericity strongly rejects the null hypothesis that these 7 items are
not correlated (p < 0.001), and the Kaiser–Meyer Olkin (KMO) statistics, which equals 0.808 here, indicates that correlations are not excessive (KMO ranges between 0 and 1
and should be at least 0.6. Cronbach’s alpha, which measures factor reliability, is 0.701, which is adequate (a value ≥0.7 is typically required).
6. The MORn factor explains 28.8% of the variance among the underlying items, which is similar to previous studies.

to Tables 2 and 3. These factors were then used in our models that
characterize e-waste recyclers and our respondents’ willingness to
recycle e-waste at drop-off centers.
4.1. Characterization of e-waste recyclers
To characterize e-waste recyclers, we included the relevant
information available about each respondent in a logit model where
the dependent variable yi equals 1 if respondent i had recycled e-
waste before and 0 otherwise. Eq. (1) links yi to an unobserved
variable yi∗ that represents the propensity of respondent i to recycle
e-waste:
 an error term with mean zero such that the i s are indepen-
1 if yi∗ > 0,
yi =
0 if yi∗ ≤ 0.
We hypothesized that the propensity to recycle may depend on
environmental attitudes (summarized by the NEP); altruism/moral
norms; perceived obstacles to recycling (safety, lack of time) and
convenience (including distance to the nearest drop-off recycling
center and access to a vehicle); knowledge of e-waste laws and
potential toxicity; income (which impacts the value of time); age;
education; gender; and marital status. For i = 1, . . ., N (where N is
the number of respondents), this relationship can be written as:

yi∗ = xi ␤ + i , (2)
where xi is a vector of explanatory variables; ␤ is a vector
of unknown parameters common to all respondents; and i is
(1) dently distributed. Descriptive statistics for our models variables
are presented in Table 4. We estimated both a logit (i has a
 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63 55

Table 4
Descriptive statistics for model variables.

Variable Name Meaning Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Dependent variables♣
recycledew Has already recycled e-waste at drop-off center? Yes = 1 0.334 0.472 0 1
willrec Willingness to recycle at a drop-off location 1.837 0.934 1 4

Explanatory variables
NEPn Normalized New Ecological Paradigm 0.618 0.181 0.000 0.960
MORn Normalized moral norm 0.734 0.164 0.000 1.000
curbd2p Has had access to curbside recycling for at least 2 years? Yes = 1 0.373 0.484 0 1
nhrec High level of recycling in your neighborhood? Yes = 1 0.205 0.403 0 1
reqrecws Required to recycle at work or at school? Yes = 1 0.146 0.354 0 1
dBRoom Problem finding room to store recyclables (agrees = 1) 0.507 0.500 0 1
dBRctf Recycling drop-off centers are too far away (agrees = 1) 0.325 0.469 0 1
dBSafe Storing recyclable materials at home is safe (agrees = 1) 0.575 0.494 0 1
dBTime Finding time to recycle is a problem (agrees = 1) 0.323 0.468 0 1
dewdrpof12 E-waste drop-off within 5 miles? Yes = 1 0.194 0.396 0 1
dewdrpoff3 E-waste drop-off within 6 to 10 miles? Yes = 1 0.095 0.293 0 1
dewdrpoff5 Does not know how far the nearest e-waste drop-off is: Yes = 1 0.612 0.488 0 1
ewtoxic Knows that e-waste contains toxic materials? Yes = 1 0.606 0.489 0 1
lawew Aware of e-waste laws? No = 1 0.667 0.471 0 1
caravail Has access to a motor vehicle? Yes = 1 0.943 0.231 0 1
age3044 Age 30–44 years old? Yes = 1 0.263 0.440 0 1
age4559 Age 45–59 years old? Yes = 1 0.283 0.451 0 1
age60plus Age 60 years or more? Yes = 1 0.255 0.436 0 1
eduhs High school highest degree in household? Yes = 1 0.332 0.471 0 1
eduscol Some college highest level of ed. in household? Yes = 1 0.296 0.456 0 1
educol A household member has a college education? Yes = 1 0.259 0.438 0 1
eth afa African American? Yes = 1 0.084 0.278 0 1
eth his Hispanic/Latino? Yes = 1 0.071 0.257 0 1
eth oth Other ethnicity? Yes = 1 0.065 0.247 0 1
gender Female? Yes = 1 0.519 0.500 0 1
lhhs Natural logarithm of household size 0.811 0.530 0.000 2.303
lincome Natural logarithm of household income 3.718 0.861 0.916 5.165
incgt175 Annual household income >$175,000? Yes = 1 0.017 0.128 0 1
married Married? Yes = 1 0.578 0.494 0 1
hous sfh Lives in single family house? Yes = 1 0.727 0.445 0 1
denrural Lives in a rural area? Yes = 1 0.313 0.464 0 1

Notes:
These statistics were calculated for the 1995 observations used to estimate our models.
♣: The variable “recycledew” is the dependent variable in our logit model that characterizes recyclers and an explanatory variable in our model that explains willingness to
recycle.

logistic distribution with variance 2 /3) and a probit (i ∼ N(0, 1)) so the probability of outcome j ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4} described in Eq. (4)
model. is given by
⎧ 
⎨ F(1 + zi ), if j = 1,
 
4.2. Willingness to recycle e-waste Pr(yi = j) = F(j + z ) − F(j−1 + z ), if j = 2 or 3, (5)
⎩ 1 − F( i + z ), if j =
i
4,
3 i
We also asked our respondents to indicate their willingness to
recycle e-waste at drop-off centers by choosing one of four cate- where the link function F denotes the cumulative distribution func-
gories: (1) “Very willing;” (2) “Willing;” (3) “Somewhat willing;” tion (cdf) of ε, and the  1 s are unknown “cutpoints” that may be
and (4) “Not willing at all.” To explain our respondents’ willing- estimated jointly with the vector ␥ via maximum likelihood. If F
ness to recycle e-waste, we started from standard ordered response is the cdf of a standard normal distribution, Eqs. (3)–(5) describe
models like the ordered logit or ordered probit (Long and Freese, an ordered probit; if instead F is the logistic cdf with Var(ε) = 2 /3,
2006). To introduce these models, let us consider again an unob- they define an ordered logit model.
served variable y*, which is here a continuous index representing One implication of the ordered response models described by
willingness to recycle e-waste, but to simplify the interpretation of Eqs. (3)–(5) is the “parallel lines” assumption. From Eq. (5), we see
our results we write that for j ∈ {1, 2, 3} cumulative probabilities are

 Pr(yi ≤ j|z) = F(j + zi ), (6)
yi∗ = −zi  + εi . (3)
so probability curves for different values of j are parallel. The gen-
where zi is a vector that includes the same variables as the propen- eralized ordered model relaxes this “parallel lines” assumption by
sity to recycle e-waste plus a binary variable that indicates prior allowing the ␥s to differ for each willingness category. This simply
experience with e-waste recycling. In Eq. (3), y* relates to the entails replacing ␥ with ␥j in Eqs. (5) and (6), so they become:
observed dependent variable y by ⎧ 
⎧ ⎨ F(1 + zi  1 ), if j = 1,
 
⎪ 1 = very willing, if 0 ≡ −∞ < yi∗ < 1 , Pr(yi = j) = F(j + z  ) − F(j−1 + z  ), if j = 2 or 3, (7)
⎨ ∗ ⎩ 1 − F( i +j z  ), if j i= j−1
2 = willing, if 1 ≤ yi < 2 , 3 4,
yi = (4) i 3
⎪ 3 = somewhat willing, if 2 ≤ yi∗ < 3 ,
⎩ 
4 = not willing at all, if 3 ≤ yi∗ < 4 ≡ +∞, Pr(yi ≤ j|z) = F(j + zi  j ). (8)
56 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63

The generalized ordered model is therefore equivalent to a series Has recycled e-waste before
of binary models where categories of the dependent variable are
A
combined: for j ∈ {1, 2, 3}, the first j categories are lumped together Curbside recycling Has not yet recycled e-waste
available for >=2
and contrasted with categories j + 1, . . ., 4 grouped together. years? All respondents
Allowing parameter values to differ for all categories would 80.0%
be very cumbersome, however. To obtain a more concise model, The problem with 60.0% High level of
recycling is finding recycling in your
Williams (2006) proposed performing a series of Wald tests time to do it 40.0% neighborhood?
(Greene, 2008) to see whether the coefficients of each variable dif-
20.0%
fer across equations. If Wald tests are statistically not significant
0.0%
for one or more variables, the variable with the least significant
Storing materials at Required to recycle at
test values is constrained to have equal coefficients across cate- home is safe school or work?
gories, the model is refitted with constraints, and the process is
repeated until there are no more variables that meet the parallel
Recycling drop-off Finding room to store
lines assumption. A global Wald test is then performed to check centers are too far recyclable materials is
that the final model does not violate the parallel lines assumption. away a problem
As explained in Williams (2006), the choice of a link function is
also important. While logit and probit models are reasonable when
changes in cumulative probabilities are slow, other link functions B Has recycled e-waste before
should be used in the presence of faster changes. The log–log link is
Don’t know distance Has not yet recycled e-waste
better suited when cumulative probabilities increase fairly slowly to nearest e-waste
from 0 and more rapidly when approaching 1. If the opposite holds, drop-off center All respondents
80.0%
the complementary log–log link may be more appropriate. Finally
the cauchit distribution is best when there are extreme values in 60.0%
>10 mi from nearest Aware of e-waste
both tails. We therefore estimated models with different link func- e-waste dropoff center 40.0% laws
tions and selected one on the basis of the Akaike and Bayesian 20.0%
information criteria (AIC and BIC). In addition, we performed a
0.0%
number of specification tests prior to finalizing our results (see
notes in Table 6). Knows that e-waste
6-10 mi from nearest
contains toxic
e-waste dropoff center
materials
5. Results and discussion
<=5 mi from nearest
Our results were estimated using Stata 11.2. They are presented e-waste drop-off
in Tables 2–7 and in Figs. 1–3. To set the stage for our models, let center
us first examine how some likely important variables impacted our
Fig. 1. Impact of key variables on e-waste recycling experience. Panel A: Household
dependent variables.
recycling and e-waste recycling experience. Panel B: E-waste knowledge/recycling
convenience and e-waste recycling experience

5.1. Analysis of answers to some key survey questions

As shown in Table 4, 33.4% of our respondents have recycled

e-waste at a drop-off recycling center; in our discussion below we
call these people e-waste recyclers and we call non recyclers those
who had not brought e-waste to a drop-off recycling center at the
time of this survey.
Fig. 1 shows the impact of some likely important variables on
household e-waste drop-off recycling experience. Results are pre-
sented as a percentage of respondents in each of three categories:
“has recycled e-waste before” at drop-off recycling centers, “has not
yet recycled e-waste”, and “all respondents.” Reported p-values in
the discussion below pertain to 2 (1) tests that compare the pro-
portion of yes/no answers from e-waste recyclers and non recyclers
for each specific question.
From Panel A, we see as expected, that e-waste recyclers are
more likely to have been exposed to curbside recycling for conven-
tional household waste for at least 2 years (p-value ≤ 0.001), to live Fig. 2. E-waste recycling experience and willingness to recycle e-waste at a drop-off
in a neighborhood where recycling is high (p-value ≤ 0.001), and to center.
have required recycling at work or school (p-value ≤ 0.001). Like-
wise, e-waste recyclers are less likely to be concerned with common Panel B displays the impact of e-waste knowledge and recy-
recycling obstacles such as finding room for recyclables (p- cling convenience on e-waste recycling experience. First, we note
value ≤ 0.001), recycling safety (p-value ≤ 0.001), and time needed that many more e-waste non-recyclers than recyclers do not know
to recycle (p-value ≤ 0.001), but not so much with the distance to how far they are from the nearest drop-off recycling center (73.1%
the nearest drop-off recycling center (p-value = 0.072). These differ- versus 37.7%; p-value ≤ 0.001). E-waste recyclers are also more
ences may reflect that people who recycled e-waste before choose aware of e-waste disposal laws than non-recyclers, although by a
to emphasize a sense of satisfaction from contributing to environ- smaller margin (39.9% versus 30.4%; p-value ≤ 0.001). On the other
mental quality in order to overcome the drudgery of that task, as hand, e-waste recyclers are much more likely to know that e-waste
argued by Werner and Makela (1998). contains toxic materials than non-recyclers (76.8% versus 52.7%;
 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63 57

A Very willing categories tend to be larger than for Panel A in Fig. 1. People who
Willing are “very willing” or “willing” are more likely to have had access
Curbside recycling
available for >=2 Somewhat willing to curbside recycling for conventional household recyclables for at
years? Not willing at all least 2 years (p ≤ 0.001), to live in a neighborhood where recycling
80.0% is high (p ≤ 0.001), and to have recycling required at work or school
The problem with 60.0% High level of (p ≤ 0.001). Moreover, people who are more willing to recycle
recycling is finding recycling in your
time to do it 40.0% neighborhood? e-waste are more likely to dismiss obstacles to recycling (find-
ing room (p ≤ 0.001), time (p ≤ 0.001), safety (p ≤ 0.001), and to a
20.0%
smaller extent, the distance to the nearest drop-off recycling center
0.0% (p = 0.021)). This relationship is not monotonic, however, because
Storing materials at Required to recycle of the “not willing at all” category but we note that few respondents
home is safe at school or work?
expressed a complete unwillingness to recycle e-waste (see Fig. 2).
Panel B displays the impact of e-waste knowledge and recycling
Finding room to convenience on willingness to recycle e-waste. We see that the less
Recycling drop-off
store recyclable
centers are too far
materials is a willing categories have the highest fraction of respondents who
away
problem do not know where the nearest e-waste drop-off recycling center
is located (p-value ≤ 0.001). The same applies to knowing e-waste
B disposal laws (p ≤ 0.001) but there is no monotonic relationship
Very willing
with the level of willingness to recycle e-waste because people in
Willing
Don’t know distance the “not willing at all” category seem to know more than those
to nearest e-waste Somewhat willing
in the “somewhat willing” category. We also observe an inverse
drop-off center Not willing at all
80.0% relationship between willingness to recycle and knowledge that e-
60.0%
waste contains toxic materials, with marked differences between
>10 mi from nearest Aware of e-waste the “very willing” (72.2%) and the “not willing at all” categories
e-waste dropoff center 40.0% laws (only 41.0%).
20.0% Simple correlation analyses can be misleading, however, so let
0.0% us go over our models’ results to understand the joint impact of our
explanatory variables after summarizing our factor analysis results.
Knows that e-waste
6-10 mi from nearest
contains toxic
e-waste dropoff center 5.2. Factor analysis
materials

Our analysis of the ten questions related to the New Ecologi-

<=5 mi from nearest
e-waste drop-off
center
Fig. 3. Impact of key variables on willingness to recycle e-waste. Panel A: Household
recycling and willingness to recycle e-waste. Panel B: E-waste knowledge/recycling
convenience and willingness to recycle e-waste.
p-value ≤ 0.001); this suggests that knowing that e-waste contains
toxic materials (60.6% of our respondents) is not enough to moti-
vate people to recycle e-waste because otherwise the fraction of
people with e-waste recycling experience (only 33.4%) would be
much higher. Convenience appears to matter because we observe
that the fraction of e-waste recyclers decreases with distance to the
nearest drop-off recycling center.
Knowing about previous e-waste recycling experience should
help explain people’s willingness to continue recycling e-waste at
drop-off centers and our results confirm that: as shown in Fig. 2,
respondents with e-waste drop-off recycling experience are more
willing to recycle e-waste at drop-off centers than those who have
never done it (2 (3) = 120.97; p-value < 0.001). Overall, 75.6% of our
respondents are either very willing or willing to recycle e-waste
at drop-off recycling centers, which is good news although good
intentions do not always lead to action (e.g., see Corral-Verdugo,
1997).
We also assessed the impact of likely important variables on
people’s willingness to recycle e-waste. Fig. 3 presents results as a
percentage of respondents in four categories characterized by dif-
ferent levels of willingness to recycle e-waste at drop-off centers.
Reported p-values below pertain to 2 (3) tests that compare the
proportion of yes/no answers from people in these four different
categories.
Panel A illustrates the impact of household recycling experience
(for common materials such as glass, newspapers or metal cans) on
willingness to recycle e-waste. We note that differences between
cal Paradigm yielded one factor, denoted by NEPn. To facilitate its
interpretation, it was normalized to vary between 0 and 1 where
1 indicates strong pro-environmental beliefs. More specifically,
agreement with items 1, 3, 6, 8 and 10 in Table 2 and disagreement
with items 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9 indicates pro-environmental beliefs.
Overall, our respondents’ pro-environmental beliefs are not quite
as marked as in previous studies, probably because we surveyed a
wide group of people and used 10 items (see Hawcroft and Milfont,
2010). Table 2 shows the coefficients used to build the NEPn factor
before normalization. As indicated in Table 2 footnotes, this factor
passes all common specification tests.
Results for the moral norm scale are reported in Table 3; fac-
tor loadings before normalization are listed in the last column. We
again obtained a single normalized factor that spans the interval
[0, 1], where values close to 1 suggest a high moral motivation for
recycling; it results from agreeing with items 1, 2, 4 and 7 and dis-
agreeing with items 3, 5, and 6. Overall, our respondents seem to
be aware of the benefits of recycling but they may not want to carry
the responsibility for excessive trash generation (item 5).
5.3. Characterization of e-waste recyclers
Results from our logit model that characterizes people who recy-
cled e-waste before are reported in Table 5. We estimated both a
logit and a probit model; they gave very similar results so we kept
the logit.
Let us start with statistically significant variables. Among these,
the variable measuring moral beliefs stands out with the highest
odds ratio at 3.246; its importance is consistent with the findings
of Hopper and Nielsen (1991), or more recently Fornara et al. (2011).
The variable indicating knowledge that e-waste contains toxic
materials also has a fairly large odds ratio (2.349), which suggests
that specific knowledge about the potential dangers of e-waste
does matter. Interestingly, mandatory recycling at work or school
58 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63

Table 5
Results of logistic model characterizing e-waste recyclers.

Variable name Coefficient value Robust standard error Odds ratio Odds ratio robust std. error

NEPn −0.177 (0.328) 0.837 (0.274)

MORn 1.177*** (0.396) 3.246*** (1.285)
curbd2p 0.060 (0.132) 1.062 (0.141)
nhrec −0.013 (0.148) 0.987 (0.146)
reqrecws 0.404*** (0.145) 1.497*** (0.218)
dBRoom −0.185 (0.119) 0.831 (0.099)
dBRctf −0.078 (0.124) 0.925 (0.115)
dBSafe −0.037 (0.120) 0.964 (0.115)
dBTime −0.141 (0.133) 0.869 (0.116)
dewdrpof12 0.284 (0.193) 1.329 (0.257)
dewdrpoff3 −0.030 (0.214) 0.971 (0.208)
dewdrpoff5 −1.259*** (0.173) 0.284*** (0.049)
ewtoxic 0.854*** (0.122) 2.349*** (0.287)
lawew −0.164 (0.114) 0.849 (0.097)
caravail 0.371 (0.271) 1.449 (0.392)
age3044 −0.071 (0.169) 0.931 (0.158)
age4559 0.194 (0.168) 1.214 (0.204)
age60pl 0.331* (0.185) 1.392* (0.258)
eduhs −0.315 (0.192) 0.730 (0.140)
eduscol 0.050 (0.197) 1.051 (0.207)
educol 0.065 (0.211) 1.067 (0.225)
eth afa −0.097 (0.223) 0.907 (0.203)
eth his 0.195 (0.227) 1.215 (0.276)
eth oth 0.272 (0.204) 1.312 (0.268)
gender 0.012 (0.109) 1.012 (0.110)
lhhs 0.239** (0.114) 1.270** (0.144)
lincome 0.082 (0.083) 1.085 (0.090)
incgt175 −0.351 (0.440) 0.704 (0.310)
married −0.014 (0.127) 0.986 (0.125)
hous sfh −0.015 (0.130) 0.985 (0.128)
denrural −0.034 (0.125) 0.966 (0.121)

Notes:
Results are based on N = 1995 observations. They were estimated using Stata 11.
The dependent variable is binary: it equals 1 if a respondent has recycled e-waste before and 0 otherwise.
For the meaning of the variables above, see Table 4.
The robust standard errors are the Huber–White–Sandwich estimates; they provide an insurance against mild departures from the homoskedasticity assumption.
A test based on “Collin” in Stata suggests no multicollinearity problem.
An analysis of standardized residuals showed that observations with large residuals are not influential.
Specification tests using Stata’s linktest and likelihood ratio tests showed that models without powers and interactions are adequate here.
McFadden’s R2 = 0.154; the log likelihood of the model without predictors is treated as a total sum of squares, and the log likelihood of the full model is treated as the sum of
squared errors; the ratio of likelihoods suggests the level of improvement over the intercept model offered by the full model.
*
Significance at the 10% level respectively.
**
Significance at the 5% level respectively.
***
Significance at the 1% level respectively.

has a positive spillover on e-waste recycling (odds ratio = 1.497).
As expected (e.g., see Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Domina and Koch,
2002; or Sidique et al., 2010), we also find that convenience (here
proximity to the nearest recycling drop-off center) is important.
More specifically, our respondents do not care about living very
close from an e-waste drop-off recycling center (the binary variable
indicating that such a center is within 2 miles is not significant) but
not knowing where the nearest recycling center is located deters
e-waste recycling (odds ratio = 0.284).
Of the socio-demographic variables, only two are statistically
significant: being over 60 years old and family size. Being older than
60 increases the odds that someone recycled e-waste before (odds
ratio = 1.392), which is consistent with previous findings that older
people are more likely to recycle (Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Domina
and Koch, 2002; Sidique et al., 2010). Likewise, family size has a
positive impact on e-waste recycling (odds ratio = 1.270), which
confirms results by Sidique et al. (2010) for e-waste and by Gamba
and Oskamp (1994) for general household recycling.
Our other explanatory variables are not statistically significant,
starting with general environmental beliefs summarized by the
NEPn factor. This supports Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1977) conclusion
that the links between general environmental attitudes/knowledge
and specific behaviors are usually weak. Likewise, Hansmann
et al. (2006) report that general attitudes toward environmentally
friendly waste disposal have no impact on batteries recycling in
Switzerland.
Moreover, experience with recycling of common household
materials (such as newspaper, glass or metals) or the neighborhood
level of that activity have no impact on whether or not some-
one recycled e-waste before. This result seems at odds with Darby
and Obara (2005) who found that households who regularly recy-
cle common household waste at the curb are more likely to bring
small e-waste items to collection sites, although we found a similar
spillover for people who must recycle at school or work. Knowledge
of e-waste disposal laws, common obstacles to recycling, and even
car availability also do not seem to matter. Several reasons may
explain these results: e-waste disposal laws are rarely enforced at
the household level; recycling e-waste is infrequent, safe and usu-
ally does not require a lot of extra space; and 94% of our respondents
had access to a vehicle.
In addition, education, ethnicity, income, marital status, home
ownership, and even gender have no impact on whether or not
someone recycled e-waste before.
5.4. Households’ willingness to recycle e-waste at drop-off centers
Let us now examine results from our analysis of households’
willingness to recycle e-waste at drop-off recycling centers. A
 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63 59

Table 6
Model estimation results.

Variable Ordered logit (OL) model Generalized ordered logit Concise generalized ordered logit
(GOL) model (cGOL) model

Coefficient Robust std. error Coefficient Robust std. error Coefficient Robust std. error

Coefficients for Eq. (6) Common coefficients for Eq. (8) Common coefficients for Eq. (8)
unless otherwise specified unless otherwise specified
***
NEPn 1.078 (0.290) 1.135*** (0.293) 1.113*** (0.294)
MORn 4.547*** (0.348) 4.571*** (0.353) 4.532*** (0.350)
curbd2p −0.159 (0.114) −0.166 (0.114) –
nhrec 0.368*** (0.142) 0.355** (0.141) 0.323** (0.130)
reqrecws 0.115 (0.140) 0.021 (0.153) −0.006 (0.149)
dBRoom −0.070 (0.105) −0.080 (0.105) –
dBRctf −0.099 (0.102) −0.111 (0.103) –
dBSafe 0.313*** (0.095) 0.316*** (0.096) 0.313*** (0.094)
dBTime −0.098 (0.107) −0.180 (0.122) −0.209* (0.112)
dewdrpof12 0.371* (0.197) 0.367 *
(0.199) 0.416 ***
(0.126)
dewdrpoff3 0.414* (0.233) 0.435* (0.235) 0.475*** (0.178)
dewdrpoff5 −0.047 (0.175) −0.043 (0.177) –
ewtoxic 0.610*** (0.099) 0.604*** (0.099) 0.599*** (0.098)
lawew −0.125 (0.103) −0.130 (0.103) –
recycledew 0.605*** (0.108) 0.606*** (0.109) 0.633*** (0.104)
caravail 0.478** (0.213) 0.442 **
(0.206) 0.450** (0.206)
age3044 0.148 (0.139) 0.109 (0.154) 0.066 (0.119)
age4559 0.057 (0.145) 0.054 (0.145) –
age60pl 0.153 (0.163) 0.152 (0.162) –
eduhs −0.072 (0.175) −0.060 (0.170) –
eduscol −0.028 (0.181) −0.021 (0.176) –
educol 0.157 (0.191) 0.053 (0.196) 0.071 (0.120)
eth afa −0.370** (0.176) −0.365 **
(0.177) −0.380** (0.174)
eth his −0.234 (0.204) 0.020 (0.212) 0.004 (0.199)
eth oth 0.167 (0.205) 0.189 (0.207) –
gender 0.326*** (0.093) 0.341*** (0.093) 0.334*** (0.092)
lhhs 0.111 (0.102) 0.127 (0.102) –
lincome 0.027 (0.066) 0.020 (0.065) –
incgt175 0.146 (0.382) 0.162 (0.401) –
married 0.308*** (0.110) 0.293 ***
(0.110) 0.344*** (0.095)
hous sfh 0.003 (0.112) 0.014 (0.111) –
denrural 0.011 (0.109) 0.010 (0.109) –
Coefficients specific to j = 2 in Eq. (8) Coefficients specific to j = 2 in Eq. (8)
reqrecws 0.115 (0.140) 0.416** (0.205) 0.379* (0.203)
dBTime −0.098 (0.107) −0.098 (0.130) −0.139 (0.121)
age3044 0.148 (0.139) 0.061 (0.162) 0.018 (0.136)
*
educol 0.157 (0.191) 0.261 (0.218) 0.264 (0.151)
eth his −0.234 (0.204) −0.309 (0.224) −0.320 (0.218)
Coefficients specific to j = 3 in Eq. (8) Coefficients specific to j = 3 in Eq. (8)
reqrecws 0.115 (0.140) −0.290 (0.302) −0.325 (0.298)
dBTime −0.098 (0.107) 0.428** (0.208) 0.376* (0.202)
age3044 0.148 (0.139) 0.770*** (0.270) 0.735*** (0.258)
educol 0.157 (0.191) 1.382*** (0.415) 1.372*** (0.377)
eth his −0.234 (0.204) −0.839 ***
(0.301) −0.853 ***
(0.298)
Cutpoints
␶1 −5.941*** (0.492) −5.880*** (0.492) −5.882*** (0.339)
␶2 −4.267*** (0.480) −4.292*** (0.477) −4.292*** (0.324)
␶3 −2.370*** (0.474) −2.763*** (0.474) −2.762*** (0.322)
Log likelihood −2031.17 −2007.42 −2012.35
␹2 (dof)p-value 608.00 (32); p-value < 0.001 637.44 (42); p-value < 0.001 615.76 (27); p-value < 0.001
McFadden’s R2 0.149 0.159 0.157
AIC 4132.34 4104.85 4084.70
BIC 4328.29 4356.78 4252.65

Notes:
Results are based on N = 1995 observations. They were estimated using “gologit2” in Stata (Williams, 2006).
For j = 2 and 3 for the GOL models, only the coefficients shown differ from those in the first equation (j = 1); the coefficient estimates for the ordered logit model are repeated
to better contrast OL with GOL and cGOL results.
For the meaning of the variables above, see Table 4.
For McFadden’s R2 , the log likelihood of the model without predictors is treated as a total sum of squares, and the log likelihood of the full model is treated as the sum of
squared errors; the ratio of likelihoods suggests the level of improvement over the intercept model offered by the full model.
A test based on “Collin” in Stata suggests no multicollinearity problem.
The robust standard errors are the Huber–White–Sandwich estimates; they provide an insurance against mild departures from the homoskedasticity assumption.
An analysis of standardized residuals showed that observations with large residuals are not influential.
Specification tests using Stata’s linktest and likelihood ratio tests showed that models without powers and interactions are adequate here.
*
Significance at the 10% level respectively.
**
Significance at the 5% level respectively.
***
Significance at the 1% level respectively.
60 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63
number of studies, including Boldero (1995), Cheung et al. (1999),
Mannetti et al. (2004), and Tonglet et al. (2004) report that attitudes
toward recycling are significant predictors of recycling intentions,
although we know that people have a tendency to overstate their
actions when it comes to recycling (e.g., see Gamba and Oskamp,
1994). Results are shown in Tables 6 and 7. Specification test results
can be found in the notes below Table 6.
5.4.1. Contrasting results for ordered models
We first estimated simple ordered logit (OL) and ordered pro-
bit models; they led to similar results so we kept the OL model.
Using the same explanatory variables, we then estimated gener-
alized ordered models with 5 different link functions (see Section
4.2). We found that the models with logit and probit link functions
gave very similar results and performed best from the point of the
AIC and BIC criteria (results are omitted for brevity), so our pre-
ferred model is a generalized ordered logit (GOL) model. Finally,
we estimated a concise generalized ordered logit model (denoted
by cGOL) obtained by dropping GOL variables that were not statis-
tically significant (p > 0.10) to simplify our discussion of variables
influencing the willingness to recycle e-waste. Table 6 presents
results for these 3 models.
Let us first focus on the first two models. In general, estimated
coefficients for OL and for GOL are close (within one standard error),
except for reqrecws, dBTime, age3044, educol, and eth his (see
Table 4 for the meaning of these variables). For these 5 variables
the parallel lines assumption does not hold and they are not sta-
tistically significant with the OL but they are with the GOL model
based on Wald tests as explained in Section 4.2. Moreover, a like-
lihood ratio test comparing the GOL and the OL models rejects the
null hypothesis that these extra parameters are not statistically sig-
nificant (2 (10) = 47.5; p-value < 0.001). This justifies our modeling
choices.
5.4.2. Generalized ordered logit results
Let us now consider results from the concise GOL model (cGOL).
Since the probability of a specific outcome depends on the value of
all explanatory variables, we rely on two different approaches to
interpret our results (Long and Freese, 2006): we examine average
marginal effects and we assess the impact of the sign of the model
coefficients. Let us start with the latter.
From Eq. (7) for j = 1, simple algebra shows that increasing a
positive explanatory variable with a positive coefficient augments
the probability of being very willing to recycle e-waste; and for j = 4
the reverse holds for the probability of being unwilling to recycle e-
waste. For j = 2 or 3, we simply note what variables are statistically
significant.
Several reasons stand out to explain willingness to recycle e-
waste at drop-off centers. The impact of several internal variables
appears to be particularly strong based on the magnitude of their
coefficients. Personal/moral norms (captured by MORn) come first,
followed by environmental beliefs (summarized by NEPn), and
social expectations (via the variable nhrec; it equals 1 if neighbor-
hood household recycling rates are high). This suggests that people
are more willing to recycle if they feel a moral responsibility to do
so, if they hold pro-environmental views, and if there is social pres-
sure to do so (as in Do Valle et al., 2004 for household recycling or
in Sidique et al., 2010 for e-waste).
The statistical significance of external variables highlights the
importance of recycling convenience (as in Domina and Koch, 2002;
Jenkins et al., 2003; Saphores et al., 2006; or Sidique et al., 2010). It
is captured by several variables: having a drop-off recycling cen-
ter nearby; having access to a car; and finding time to recycle
e-waste. Both coefficients indicating distance to the nearest drop-
off recycling center are positive and significant (within 5 miles,
and between 6 and 10 miles), but the latter has a slightly larger
magnitude. This suggests concerns for potential disameties asso-
ciated with drop-off recycling centers (e.g., pollution, noise, or
traffic). Knowing that e-waste contains toxic materials but that
recycling is safe also boosts people’s willingness to recycle e-
waste.
Other significant variables include gender (women are more
willing to recycle as in Saphores et al., 2006; or Sidique et al., 2010);
being married; and prior e-waste recycling experience. In addition,
both African Americans and Hispanic appear less willing to recycle
e-waste, which confirms the findings of Johnson et al. (2004) for
recycling.
On the other hand, education level, age, and mandatory recy-
cling of conventional household wastes (paper, glass, metal) appear
to play a more minor role except for respondents who are less
than very willing to recycle e-waste. We conjecture that educa-
tional attainment is an ineffective proxy for specific knowledge
about the public health/environmental consequences of improp-
erly disposing of e-waste. Moreover, retirees may not have an edge
for recycling e-waste at drop-off centers since it is an infrequent
activity that requires driving to an unpleasant location.
Finally, we see that knowledge of e-waste laws (probably
because enforcement is lacking), familiarity with curbside recy-
cling for conventional household waste (possibly because recycling
at drop-off centers is different; see Sidique et al., 2010), household
income (as in Saphores et al., 2006 or Scott, 1999), family size (see
Scott, 1999), and living in a rural area do not appear to matter. The
latter is at odds with Saphores et al., 2006, but their finding may be
due to respondents from Mono County, which has a history of envi-
ronmental activism. A couple of reasons may explain why wealthier
households are not more willing to recycle e-waste: they are likely
to have more space to store e-waste and the value of their time is
higher.
Let us now look at average marginal probability effects. They
are obtained by averaging marginal effects over all respondents, so
they tell us about the impact of a policy that would uniformly affect
all respondents. Let xki denote the kth variable for respondent i. If
xki is continuous, its marginal effect for outcome j ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4} is the
derivative of Pr(yi = j|xi ) with respect to xki and if xki is discrete, its
marginal effect is Pr(yi = j|xki = 1) − Pr(yi = j|xki = 0); other variables
are left unchanged. Results are presented in Table 7.
Right away, we note the large average marginal effect of the
normalized moral norm variable: a 0.01 increase in moral norm
raises the probability of being “very willing” to recycle e-waste
by 0.848% and decreases the probability of all other willingness
categories. This is approximately four times more than for general
environmental beliefs summarized by the New Ecological Paradigm
(NEPn).
Variables related to conventional household waste recycling
have a relatively modest average marginal effect. Increasing social
pressure by changing the perception that neighborhood recycling
is high raises the probability of being “very willing” by 0.061.
However, making recycling compulsory at school or work has no
significant impact on the probabilities of being “very willing” or
“not willing at all”; it simply shifts people from the “somewhat
willing” to the “willing” categories. Likewise, changing the percep-
tion that recycling at home is not safe increases the probability of
being “very willing” by 0.059, while changing the perception that
recycling is time consuming just adds 0.039.
Opening e-waste drop-off recycling centers closer to people’s
homes has a positive (albeit small) impact on their willingness to
recycle e-waste: if it is within 5 miles, it increases the probability
of being “very willing” by 0.078. However, our respondents prefer
recycling centers that are slightly farther away, possibly because of
associated disamenities such as traffic and noise: having a drop-off
recycling center between 6 and 10 miles increases the probability
of being “very willing” by 0.089.
 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63 61

Table 7
Sample average marginal effects.

Variable Very willing Willing Somewhat willing Not willing at all

Normalized New Ecological Paradigm 0.208*** −0.049*** −0.102*** −0.057***

(0.051) (0.012) (0.025) (0.015)
Normalized moral norm 0.848*** −0.202*** −0.414*** −0.232***
(0.055) (0.019) (0.030) (0.022)
High level of recycling in your neighborhood? Yes = 1 0.061*** −0.017** −0.029*** −0.015***
(0.023) (0.007) (0.011) (0.005)
Required to recycle at work or at school? Yes = 1 −0.001 0.053* −0.070*** 0.018
(0.026) (0.028) (0.021) (0.017)
Storing recyclable materials at home is safe (agrees = 1) 0.059*** −0.016*** −0.028*** −0.014***
(0.017) (0.005) (0.008) (0.004)
Finding time to recycle is a problem (agrees = 1) −0.039** 0.019 0.037** −0.017**
(0.019) (0.019) (0.016) (0.008)
E-waste drop-off within 5 miles? Yes = 1 0.078*** −0.023*** −0.037*** −0.018***
(0.022) (0.008) (0.010) (0.005)
E-waste drop-off within 6–10 miles? Yes = 1 0.089*** −0.027** −0.041*** −0.021***
(0.031) (0.011) (0.014) (0.006)
Knows that e-waste contains toxic materials? Yes = 1 0.112*** −0.035*** −0.052*** −0.025***
(0.017) (0.007) (0.007) (0.003)
Has recycled e-waste at drop-off center? Yes = 1 0.118*** −0.038*** −0.054*** −0.026***
(0.017) (0.007) (0.008) (0.004)

Notes:
Sample average marginal effects, which are based on the concise generalized ordered logit model (last column in Table 6), were generated using the command “margeff”
in Stata (Bartus, 2005). Let xki denote the kth variable for respondent i. If xki is continuous, its marginal effect for outcome j ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4} is the derivative of Pr(yi = j|xi ) with
respect to xki and if xki is discrete, its marginal effect is Pr(yi = j|xki = 1) − Pr(yi = j|xki = 0), with all other variables unchanged.
A number in parenthesis after an average marginal effect is the corresponding standard error.
*
Significance at the 10% level respectively.
**
Significance at the 5% level respectively.
***
Significance at the 1% level respectively.

Two variables make more of a dent: knowing that e-waste con-
tains toxic materials and having previously recycled e-waste at a
drop-off center. The former raises the probability of being “very
willing” by 0.112 and the latter by 0.118, while decreasing the prob-
ability of the other levels of willingness. This suggest that educating
people about the dangers of the improper disposal of e-waste and
getting them to start recycling e-waste can boost their participation
in e-waste recycling schemes.
Overall, these results highlight the importance of internal vari-
ables that capture moral norms and environmental beliefs for
explaining people’s willingness to recycle e-waste, and more gen-
erally to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.
6. Conclusions
The goal of our research was to shed some light on households’
willingness to recycle e-waste in order to inform policies designed
to tackle the growing e-waste problem. Indeed, the prospect of a
continued increase in the volume of e-waste as well as growing
concerns about the loss of rare metals in non-recycled electronic
products and about the fate of e-waste exported to developing
countries call for better collection and recycling programs. House-
holds, who consume the bulk of electronic products, have a key role
to play.
In this context, our generalized ordered logit model illustrates
the need to go beyond simple ordered models (such as ordered logit
or probit) to better capture the complex impact of various charac-
teristics on people’s willingness to engage in pro-environmental
behavior.
Moreover, our empirical results show that no clear socio-
economic characteristic defines people with e-waste recycling
experience, except that current e-waste recyclers are slightly more
likely to have larger families or to be over 60 years old. However,
they know that e-waste contains potentially toxic materials, they
have been exposed to conventional recycling either at work or at
school, and they are motivated by moral norms. They also need to
know where the nearest drop-off recycling center is located.
Although only one-third of our respondents have recycled e-
waste before, three quarters of them are either willing or very
willing to do so. Women and married people appear more moti-
vated while African Americans and Hispanic appear less willing
to recycle e-waste. Knowing that e-waste contains toxic materials
matters, and so does convenience, although people do not want to
live too close to a drop-off recycling center. Environmental beliefs
and social pressure to recycle in general also have an impact, but the
most important factor underlying willingness to recycle e-waste is
clearly moral norms.
These results suggest several courses of action. First, more infor-
mation should be provided about the potential toxicity of e-waste
and the potential public health impacts of its improper disposal,
with a particular attention to African American and Hispanic com-
munities. Drop-off recycling should be expanded, either by creating
dedicated recycling centers or by concluding agreements with elec-
tronics retailers so they take back obsolete or broken electronic
products. To finance this measure, advanced recycling fees could be
collected, as in California, for example (e.g., see Nixon et al., 2009).
Second, environmental organizations, schools, and universities
should continue to educate people about the public health and
environmental impacts of dumping pollutants in the environment.
With the help of church groups, they should help reinforce moral
and social norms that condition our environmental behavior. At the
same time, government should improve laws dealing with e-waste
disposal, publicize existing laws and enforce them.
However, the gap between people who state that they are very
willing to recycle e-waste and the actual number of recyclers, as
well as past experience with other pollution problems suggest that
these measures are not going to be sufficient, at least not in the
short run.
In particular, economic instruments, and especially deposit-
refund systems (where consumers pay a fee when they purchase
a product and get it back when they return it at the end of its
useful life) should be given serious consideration. Indeed, a num-
ber of authors, including Fullerton and Kinnaman (1995) or Palmer
et al. (1997) for municipal waste and Sigman (1995) for automobile
62 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63
battery recycling, have shown the superiority of well designed
deposit refund-system over other economic instruments when the
cost of illegal disposal is taken into account. Shinkuma (2003) con-
curred when transaction costs are low and Kahhat et al. (2008)
suggested implementing a deposit-refund system for e-waste after
installing radio-frequency identification device (RFID) in electronic
products to lower transaction costs.
A second option, which could be used concurrently with the
previous one, is to “green” electronics by restricting the use of
toxic materials in electronics products, with a focus on heavy met-
als like lead or mercury. Although this approach does not deal
with the recycling of valuable materials in e-waste, it addresses
the public health and environmental risks of improperly process-
ing e-waste. It is attractive because of the very rapid rate of
innovation in electronics, and it has been used by the European
Union in its directive on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances
(www.rohs.eu/english/index.html). Results from the removal of
lead from solder are encouraging although replacements are not
environmentally benign (Henshall et al., 2011).
Future research could further explore obstacles to e-waste recy-
cling among minority groups; compare the effectiveness of various
e-waste recycling options; and assess the feasibility of economic
incentives such as deposit refund programs versus regulations that
aim at greening electronics.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by the Program in Indus-
trial Ecology at UC-Irvine (UCI). This Program was supported by
funds from the National Science Foundation (DMII 0223894) and
the University of California Toxic Substances Research and Teach-
ing Program (UC 44157); their support is gratefully acknowledged.
Finally, we are grateful to the Editor and three referees for very
helpful comments.
References
Ajzen I. Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University Press;
1988.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes 1991;50:179–211.
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitude–behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 1977;84:888–918.
Ajzen I, Madden TJ. Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: attitudes, intentions,
and perceived behavioural control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
1986;22:453–74.
Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow
giving. The Economic Journal 1990;100:464–77.
Bamberg S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally
related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 2003;23(1):21–32.
Bartus T. Estimation of marginal effects using margeff. The Stata Journal
2005;5(3):309–29.
Basel Action Network. The e-waste crisis introduction, <http://e-stewards.org/the-
e-waste-crisis/>; 2010 [accessed on 12/09.11].
Birnbaum LS, Staskal DF. Brominated flame retardants: cause for concern? Environ-
mental Health Perspectives 2004;112(1):9–17.
Boldero J. The prediction of household recycling of newspaper: the role of atti-
tudes, intentions and situational factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
1995;25:440–62.
Bouvier R, Wagner T. The influence of collection facility attributes on household col-
lection rates of electronic waste: the case of televisions and computer monitors.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2011;55:1051–9.
Bratt C. The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior.
Environment and Behavior 1999;31(5):630–56.
Brekke KA, Kverndokk S, Nyborg K. An economic model of moral motivation. Journal
of Public Economics 2003;87:1967–83.
Cheung S, Chan D, Wong Z. Reexamining the theory of planned behavior in under-
standing wastepaper recycling. Environment and Behavior 1999;31:587–612.
Clark CF, Kotchen MJ, Moore MR. Internal and external influences on pro-
environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 2003;23:237–46.
Corral-Verdugo V. Dual realities of conservation behavior: self-reports vs. obser-
vations of re-use and recycling behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology
1997;17:135–45.
Darby L, Obara L. Household recycling behaviour and attitudes towards the dis-
posal of small electrical and electronic equipment. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 2005;44(1):17–35.
DeYoung R. Recycling as appropriate behavior: a review of survey data from selected
recycling education programs in Michigan. Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling 1990;3:1–13.
Derksen L, Gartrell J. The social context of recycling. American Sociological Review
1993;58(3):434–42.
Domina T, Koch K. Convenience and frequency of recycling: implications for
including textiles in curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behavior
2002;34:216–38.
Do Valle PO, Reis E, Menezes J, Rebelo E. Behavioral determinants of household
recycling participation. Environment and Behavior 2004;36(4):505–40.
Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmen-
tal Education 1978;9:10–9.
Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AD, Jones RE. Measuring endorsement of
the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues
2000;56(3):425–42.
Eurostat. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE),
<http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do>; 2011
[accessed on 12.09.11].
Ewing G. Altruistic, egoistic, and normative effects on curbside recycling. Environ-
ment and Behavior 2001;33(6):733–64.
Folz D, Hazlett J. Public participation and recycling performance: explaining program
success. Public Administration Review 1991;51(6):526–32.
Fornara F, Carrus G, Passafaro P, Bonnes M. Distinguishing the sources of nor-
mative influence on proenvironmental behaviors: the role of local norms in
household waste recycling. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2011;14(5):
623–35.
Fullerton D, Kinnaman T. Garbage, recycling and illegal burning or dumping. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management 1995;29:78–91.
Gamba RJ, Oskamp S. Factors influencing community residents’ participation
in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behavior
1994;26(5):587–612.
Granzin KL, Olsen JE. Characterizing participants in activities protecting the envi-
ronment: a focus on donating, recycling, and conserving behaviors. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing 1991;10(2):1–27.
Greene WH. Econometric analysis. 6th ed. Prentice Hall; 2008.
Greenpeace. Where does e-waste end up? <www.greenpeace.org/international/
en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/the-e-waste-problem/where-does-e-waste-
end-up/>; 2009 [accessed on 12.09.11].
Guagnano G, Stern P, Dietz T. Influences on the attitude–behavior relationships:
a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior
1995;27(5):699–718.
Hage O, Söderholm P, Berglund C. Norms and economic motivation in household
recycling: empirical evidence from Sweden. Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling 2009;53:155–65.
Hansmann R, Bernasconi P, Smieszek T, Loukopoulos P, Scholz RW. Justifications
and self-organization as determinants of recycling behavior: the case of used
batteries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2006;47:133–59.
Harbaugh WT. What do donations buy? A model of philanthropy based on prestige
and warm glow. Journal of Public Economics 1998;67:269–84.
Hawcroft LJ, Milfont TL. The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm
scale over the last 30 years: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ogy 2010;30:143–58.
Henshall G, Bath J, Handwerker CA. Lead-free solder process development. Wiley-
IEEE Press; 2011.
Hopper JR, Nielsen JM. Recycling as altruistic behavior normative and behavioral
strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environ-
ment and Behavior 1991;23:195–220.
Hornik J, Cherian J, Madansky M, Narayana C. Determinants of recycling behavior: a
synthesis of research results. Journal of Socio-Economics 1995;24(1):105–27.
Jang Y-C, Kim M. Management of used & end-of-life mobile phones in Korea: a
review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2010;55:11–9.
Jenkins RR, Martinez SA, Palmer K, Podolsky MJ. The determinants of house-
hold recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and
unit pricing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003;45:
294–318.
Johnson CY, Bowker JM, Cordell HK. Ethnic variation in environmental belief and
behavior: an examination of the New Ecological Paradigm in a social psycholog-
ical context. Environment and Behavior 2004;36(2):157–86.
Kahhat R, Kim J, Xu M, Allenby B, Williams E, Zhang P. Exploring e-waste man-
agement systems in the United States. Resource, Conservation and Recycling
2008;52:955–64.
Katzev RD, Mishima HR. The use of posted feedback to promote recycling. Psycho-
logical Reports 1992;71:259–64.
Lansana F. Distinguishing potential recyclers from non-recyclers: a basis for
developing recycling strategies. Journal of Environmental Education 1992;23:
16–23.
Long JS, Freese J. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata.
2nd ed. College Station: Stata Press; 2006.
Mannetti L, Pierro A, Livi S. Recycling: planned and self-expressive behavior. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 2004;24:227–36.
Margai F. Analyzing changes in waste reduction behavior in a low-income urban
community following a public outreach program. Environment and Behavior
1997;29:769–92.
 J.-D.M. Saphores et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 60 (2012) 49–63
McCarty JA, Shrum LJ. The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value orienta-
tions, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. Journal
of Business Research 1994;30:53–62.
McQuaid RW, Murdoch A. Recycling policy in areas of low income and
multi-storey housing. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
1996;39(4):547–64.
Meneses GD, Palacio AB. Recycling behavior: a multidimensional approach. Envi-
ronment and Behavior 2005;37:837–60.
Nixon H, Saphores J-D, Ogunseitan O, Shapiro AA. Understanding preferences
for recycling electronic waste in California—the influence of environmen-
tal attitudes and beliefs on willingness to pay. Environment and Behavior
2009;41(1):101–24.
Nnorom IC, Ohakwe J, Osibanjo O. Survey of willingness of residents to participate
in electronic waste recycling in Nigeria: a case study of mobile phone recycling.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2009;17(18):1629–37.
Nyborg K, Howarth RB, Brekke KA. Green consumers and public policy: on socially
contingent moral motivation. Resource and Energy Economics 2006;28:351–66.
Oskamp S, Harrington MJ, Edwards TC, Sherwood DL, Okuda SM, Swanson DC.
Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior
1991;23(4):494–519.
Owen AL, Videras JR. Culture and public goods: the case of religion and the voluntary
provision of environmental quality. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 2007;54:162–80.
Owens J, Dickerson S, Macintosh D. Demographic covariates of residential recycling
efficiency. Environment and Behavior 2000;32(5):637–50.
Palmer K, Sigman H, Walls M. The cost of reducing solid waste. Journal of Environ-
mental Economics and Management 1997;33:128–50.
Perry GDR, Williams LD. The participation of ethnic minorities in kerbside recycling:
a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2007;49(3):308–23.
Piliavin JA, Charng H. Altruism: a review of recent theory and research. Annual
Review of Sociology 1990;16:27–65.
Rege M. Social norms and private provision of public goods. Journal of Public Eco-
nomic Theory 2004;6:65–77.
Saphores J-D, Nixon H, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA. Household willingness to recy-
cle electronic waste: an application to California. Environment and Behavior
2006;38:183–208.
Saphores JM, Nixon H, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA. How much e-waste is there in US
basements and attics? Results from a national survey. Journal of Environmental
Management 2009;90:3322–31.
Sansone C, Weir C, Harpster L, Morgan C. Once a boring task always a boring task?
Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology 1992;63:379–90.
Schultz PW, Oskamp S, Mainieri T. Who recycles and when? A review of per-
sonal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1995;15:
105–21.
Schwartz SH. Moral decision making and behavior. In: Macauley J, Berkowitz L,
editors. Altruism and helping behavior. NY: Academic Press; 1970. p. 127–41.
Schwartz SH. Normative explanations of helping behavior: a critique, proposal, and
empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1973;9:349–64.
Schwartz SH. Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology 1977;10:221–79.
Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values? Journal of Social Issues 1994;50:19–45.
Scott D. Equal opportunity, unequal results: determinants of household recycling
intensity. Environment and Behavior 1999;31(2):267–90.
Sepulveda A, Schluep M, Renaud FG, Streicher M, Kuehr R, Hageluken C, et al. A
review of the environmental fate and effects of hazardous substances released
from electrical and electronic equipments during recycling: examples from
China and India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2010;30:28–41.
Shinkuma T. On the second-best policy of household’s waste recycling. Environmen-
tal and Resource Economics 2003;24:77–95.
Sidique SF, Lupi F, Joshi SV. The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling
activities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2010;54:163–70.
63
Sigman H. A comparison of public policies for lead recycling. Rand Journal of Eco-
nomics 1995;26(3):452–78.
Snyder, KC, Kristel, OV, Dhmammarungruang, B, Sang, S,. Report to the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency: drop-off recycling—understanding par-
ticipation and determining an empirically based access credit model,
<www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/solidwaste/ohaccesscreditreport.pdf>; 2004
[accessed on 15.11.10].
Speirs D, Tucker P. A profile of recyclers making special trips to recycle. Journal of
Environmental Management 2001;62:201–20.
Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support
for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review
1999;6:81–97.
Sykes GM, Matza D. Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. American
Sociological Review 1957;22(6):664–70.
Taylor S, Todd P. An integrated model of waste management behaviour: a test
of household recycling and composting intentions. Environment and Behavior
1995;27(5):603–30.
Thøgersen J. A model of recycling behaviour: with evidence from Danish
source separation programmes. International Journal of Research in Marketing
1994;11(1):145–63.
Thompson B. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Psychological Association; 2004.
Tiller KH, Jakus PM, Park WM. Household willingness to pay for drop-off recycling.
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1997;22:310–20.
Tonglet M, Phillips PS, Read AD. Using the theory of planned behaviour to investi-
gate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth, UK.
Resources Conservation and Recycling 2004;41:191–214.
Turaga RMR, Howarth RB, Borsuk ME. Pro-environmental behavior—rational choice
meets moral motivation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2010;Eco-
logical Economics Reviews, ISSN 0077-8923.
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Recycling – from
e-waste to resources. <www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/E-
Waste publication screen FINALVERSION-sml.pdf>; 2009 [accessed on
13.11.10].
U.S. EPA. Electronic waste management in the United States, Approach
1, Table 3.1. EPA530-R-08-009, <http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/
materials/ecycling/docs/app-1.pdf>; 2008 [accessed on 09.12.11].
U.S. EPA. Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the
United States: facts and figures for 2008. Office of Solid Waste. Report
accessed 13.11.10 from <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/
pubs/msw2008data.pdf>; 2009.
U.S. EPA. Lead in paint, dust, and soil. <www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadinfo.htm>;
2010a [accessed on 21.12.10].
U.S. EPA. Mercury. <www.epa.gov/hg/effects.htm>; 2010b [accessed on 21.12.10].
United States Geological Survey (USGS). Mineral Resources Program website,
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/>; 2010 [accessed on 21.12.10].
Vining J, Ebreo A. What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecy-
clers. Environment and Behavior 1990;22:55–73.
Vining J, Ebreo A. Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmen-
tal attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 1992;22(20):1580–607.
Wang Z, Zhang B, Yin J, Zhang X. Willingness and behavior towards e-waste
recycling for residents in Beijing city, China. Journal of Cleaner Production
2011;19:977–84.
Werner CM, Turner J, Shipman K, Twitchell FS, Dickson BR, Bruschke GV, et al.
Commitment, behavior, and attitude change: an analysis of voluntary recycling.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 1995;15:197–208.
Werner C, Makela E. Motivations and behaviors that support recycling. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 1998;18(4):373–86.
Williams R. Generalized ordered logit /partial proportional odds models for ordinal
dependent variables. The Stata Journal 2006;6(1):58–82.
Woodard R, Bench M, Harder MK. The development of a UK kerbside scheme using
known practice. Journal of Environmental Management 2005;75:115–27.