Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

The hidden dynamics of household waste separation: An

anthropological analysis of user commitment, barriers, and the gaps
between a waste system and its users*
Jiesper Tristan Strandsbjerg Pedersen a, b, *, Halaze Manhice c, d
a
Social Science Institute (ICS), University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
b
CCIAM, Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
c
Instituto Superior T
ecnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal
d
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Quelimane, Mozambique

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

Article history: The implementation of household waste separation in the European Union (EU) faces challenges, and
Received 23 December 2017 argued less successful than expected. This article reports on an anthropological case study in five
Received in revised form apartment buildings in the Copenhagen area, Denmark, analyzing the relationship between the local
22 January 2019
municipal waste system and its users. The results reveal that the implementation of increased source
Accepted 26 March 2019
Available online 10 September 2019
separation cannot rely solely on value appeals (as proposed in the EU strategy). The residents performed
waste separation with different intensification and the majority of households (93%) has a yet unrealized
Handling editor: Zheming Tong potential to separate more waste. The residents stretching to separate as-much-as-possible-waste (7%)
expressed strong sustainable values, or they had a daily life with sufficient available time (e.g., retired,
unemployed, had a part-time job) to engage in waste separation. The critical barriers identified were
cultural perceptions of household order, challenges regarding interim storage in the household, (bio)
waste was perceived as disgusting, challenges regarding hygiene and potential extra cleaning, mistrust to
the system, as well as expressed difficulties to changing to the new segregation habit. The study suggests
adjustments in the policy approach to not only target waste separation as a single standing action but as
a new routine that needs to be implemented in the existing network of household routines. A policy
focus on a combination on "awareness" (shaping values), "user convenience", "the network of household
routines", "the perception of household order", and "user trust in the waste system" may represent five
keys to unlock the presently unrealized potential in household waste separation. Additionally, the EU
statistics illustrate poor improvements on waste reduction and increasing numbers of packaging waste.
This may reveal a policy gaps, which may endanger user trust in the system.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction recent decades, continuous efforts in research, policy-making and

Waste management plays a central role in the EU plan for
implementing a circular economy and is presented as a way to
transform and modernize the European economy in a sustainable
direction (Cobo et al., 2018; EC, 2017a; Rada and Cioca, 2017). In
*
Permanent Address: CCIAM, Faculdade de Cie ^ncias da Universidade de Lisboa
(FCUL) Campo Grande, Edifício C1, 1749-016 Lisboa Portugal.
* Corresponding author. Social Science Institute (ICS), University of Lisbon, Lis-
bon, Portugal.
E-mail addresses: jiespertristan@gmail.com, japedersen@fc.ul.pt, jiesper.
pedersen@ics.ulisboa.pt (J.T.S. Pedersen).
municipal administration have led to improvements towards more
sustainable urban waste management systems (Ordon ~ ez et al.,
2015; Pinto et al., 2017; Ragazzi et al., 2017), which is closely
related to the development of sustainable production patterns and
involve discussions regarding producer responsibility and waste
reduction (EC, 2010; Eriksson et al., 2005; Finnveden et al., 2013).
However, in EU, large amounts of waste are still generated every
year (EC, 2017b), and the complexity is increasing (Hoornweg and
Bhada-Tata, 2012) with still growing costs for nature, climate, and
societies (IPCC, 2013; Jackson, 2009).
Waste separation is a relatively new policy focus and several
indicators reveal that waste separation is not yet implemented as a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.281
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285
general practice in EU households. An average EU citizen produces
around 500 kg of municipal waste per year. It is stated that only
around 40% of the waste produced in households were recycled in
2014 (EC, 2017b). In 2015 EU recycling targets were lowered (EC,
2015a; Sanderson, 2015), and tried reduced even further by na-
tional governments (Teffer, 2017). Especially the aims and potential
for biowaste separation are not fulfilled (Bourguignon, 2015;
Edjabou et al., 2016).
For the EU it is essential to address obstacles on the ground (EC,
2015b), and it is argued that adaptation of waste management
systems to particular situations requires a balance between policy-
requirements, waste management infrastructure, and households
(Ordon ~ ez et al., 2015). Source separation in households is an
essential element in the politically desired conversion to achieve
high rates of recycling. Campaigning and education are generally
recommended (Mwanza et al., 2018) and central instruments in the
EU strategy (EC, 2018; European Parliament, 2018). Although, the
awareness and knowledge of people in caring about the natural
environment are growing (EU, 2011; Gallup, 2009) many are not
convinced of the need to separate municipal waste (Osuch et al.,
2016). This creates an interest in understanding how households
relate to source segregation (Oh and Lee, 2017; Ordon ~ ez et al., 2015;
Petersen and Christiansen, 2017; Rada et al., 2016).
This paper presents an anthropological analysis of source-
segregation in apartment buildings within a multicultural setting.
The aim was to investigate and analyze the challenges related to
household waste separation in apartment buildings by analyzing a
local waste system perceived from the residents’ perspective. This
involved identifying and analyzing the gaps between users and the
facilities offered by the system, and the merits of appealing to
values (e.g., provided via education and campaigning instruments)
versus other drivers and methods for increased source separation
in households. The case study presented, included direct contact
and interviews with 112 of 455 households, ten home visits, and a
survey of 93 responses. Additionally, a waste composition study
was carried out for three waste types (cardboard, plastic, and bio-
waste). The purpose of the methodology was to capture and
analyze the relationship between resident perceptions, values, and
the daily routines reproduced in households, and how these con-
nect to the relatively new citizen obligation of source separation.
Although the field of waste handling in multi-story apartment
buildings is not exactly un-investigated, the households are less
studied. The majority of studies in the field are based on quanti-
tative methods (e.g., Osuch et al., 2016; Stoeva and Alriksson, 2017),
which does not necessarily catch the total population of households
(Rispo et al., 2015) nor the daily life activities and possible obstacles
on the ground (Hargreaves, 2011; Shove et al., 2012). A great share
of European households (42%) are apartments (DST, 2017; Eurostat,
2017), and therefore it's a crucial field which can create a significant
impact on the overall EU recycling rates. The recycling program in
some member states is argued to function as a barrier instead of
being a motivator for household waste separation (Stoeva and
Alriksson, 2017). Policies may work well in individual houses
with a door-to-door collection, which implies direct feedback be-
tween the system and individual households, but not necessarily in
apartment buildings with collective curbside containers (Ordon ~ ez
et al., 2015; Petersen and Christiansen, 2017).
2. Material and methods
2.1. The case study background and the physical field
The study was conducted in close collaboration with “Ved
Milestedet,” an apartment association with five buildings located
and Municipality of Rødovre, Copenhagen area. The data collection
was carried out between December 2016 and August 2017.
The apartment association was chosen since many disposal er-
rors had been identified in apartment households with a curbside
waste collection system in this area. The municipality had detected
fewer segregation errors in households with door-to-door collec-
tion. The five apartment buildings are located in four geographical
living areas with 100e200 m between them. There are three 3-
story buildings and two so-called “High Towers” (HT1 & HT2)
with 12 and 16 stories. Relocation in the association's apartment
had happened on a regular basis, especially in the High Towers with
a relocation-rate above 10% (see Table 1).
Waste separation was implemented in the three-story buildings
in 2013, and in the High Towers in spring, 2016. Allocation of mu-
nicipality information on waste separation (i.e., a waste separation
guide) had been distributed once to all households and may not
have reached the newest residents (Fig. 1).
From each floor, residents have access to disposal of residual
mixed waste via waste chutes, which is collected in containers in
locked rooms on the ground floor of the buildings. In the outdoor
living areas, residents and other people passing by have access to
disposal of eight waste fractions: batteries, cardboard, paper, metal,
glass, plastic, biowaste and small cardboard (e.g., packaging waste
such as tetrapak1). No residual waste containers are installed in the
outdoor areas. The three areas of Nør/Mag, HT1, and HT2, have
underground containers (UG) as well as locked sheds (only access
for residents) for bulky, hazardous, ceramic and electronic waste.
Lillekær has no UGs. Three unlocked sheds with containers on
wheels and with public access are located in Nør/Mag (1) and Lil-
lekær (2). Container locations are illustrated in Fig. 2 (see Fig. 3).
Table 2 shows the location, size and waste fraction for UGs and
open container sheds in the four outdoor living areas.
In Denmark, waste management was in 1973 enrolled under an
environmental law representing a shift from waste as primarily
perceived as a health issue, gradually to one perceived as (also)
being an environmental issue. In 1989, a new law made local au-
thorities more or less free to decide on how to collect and manage
waste locally, as long as they comply with national targets and
objectives (DAKOFA, 2018). Since 1942, and in particular with the
passing of the “The Danish Bottle Bill” in 2000 a refund and deposit
system has been established, representing an economic tool for
citizens to separate and deliver used beverage containers such as
metal cans, plastic, and glass bottles (Andersen, 2017; DEPA, 1999).
2.2. Methodology & methods
The research design drew upon both qualitative and quantita-
tive methods, involving anthropological participation, semi-
structured interviews, user survey, (see Table 3) and a waste
composition analysis, aiming to better understand the daily life in
households, and capture a broad sample of residents regarding
waste perceptions and activities.
2.2.1. Home visits: participatory observation
The ten home visits had a duration of 1e4 h. Four households
visits were planned together with the association office, who asked
for volunteers via phone calls and when meeting residents at the
office. Those four visits involved a participatory approach with a
three-step process of interacting with the household members
during shopping, cooking/eating, and cleaning. This aimed to study
residents in the process of producing and handling waste: con-
sumption, use, and disposal. The interacting also involved semi-
1
Tetrapak is a term for beverage containers made of both plastic and cardboard
materials, often manufactured for milk and juice.
 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285
Table 1
Overview of the four apartment localities: Households, Average renting period, Percentage of relocation/new residents and Household with non-Danish ethnicity per June
2017.
Locality Average renting period per household
HT1 (12-stories) 19 years
HT2 14 years
(16-stories)
Mag/Nør 14 years
(2 buildings/3-stories)
Lillekær 7 years
(3-stories)
Total 13 years
Fig. 1. Waste separation guide for Municipality of Rødovre. Front page (left), description of glass, paper and metal categories (middle), and recommendation for citizens to invest in
a composting container for the garden (right). Source: Municipality of Rødovre (RK, 2013).
structured interviews regarding perceptions of waste, waste sepa-
ration routines and performance, values, and knowledge of how to
sort correctly (i.e., separation quiz). The six other home visits were
conducted via resident invitations during “interactions by the bins”
(section 2.2.2) and involved residents’ resumes of their daily waste
routines and perceived challenges/barriers, values, and motivators.
2.2.2. Interactions by the bins: informal semi-structured interviews
in the outdoor areas
A method to conduct informal interviews was designed for the
study, aiming to approach and catch a wide variety of residents, and
in particular include non-separating residents. Residents were
encountered randomly in the outdoor areas, while they were
disposing of waste, talking to neighbors or doing errands. They
were invited to answering a few questions regarding waste. The
approach was open and informal, inspired by grounded theory
(Martin and Turner, 1986) seeking to make residents openly reveal
how they perceived and handled waste. Residents were first asked:
“Where do you live?” and secondly “What do you do with your
waste?” The neutral introductory questions aimed to liberally
explore if residents engaged in waste separation or not. The
following questions investigated their perception of waste, waste
3
Households living less than Percentage of households with
two years in the association another ethnicity than Danish
20% 39% (37/95 households)
13% 35% (68/192)
10% 27% (28/105)
10% 38% (24/63)
13% 35% (157/455)
routines, commitment, challenges, and knowledge about the sys-
tem and waste fractions.
2.2.3. User survey
A user survey in English and Danish was distributed to all 455
households in hardcopy. Residents could deliver the hardcopy in
boxes at all entrances before two specific dates, and by the asso-
ciation's administrative office. One hundred homes additionally
received an Email with a link to a web-based version (i.e., house-
holds registered with email addresses in the association office).
The survey aimed to investigate tenants' waste performance and
perception of waste separation and management. To make the
survey clear and concise, we used five-point Likert scale items (36
questions), and multiple choice for social variables (9) such as age,
communication with neighbors, number of household members,
and work situation. To additionally guarantee high reliability the
survey is replicable and the questions were tested by researchers
(2) and citizens (4) to ensure non-ambiguous, simple, and neutral
questions written in an easy-to-understand language.
Residents were asked to evaluate their waste activities
regarding “separation performance”, “barriers”, “enabling mecha-
nisms”, and “values”, as well as their perception of waste,
4 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

Fig. 2. Map of the association (left) showing the five apartment buildings (dark blue), UG locations (blue circles); unlocked container sheds (orange circles); Locked sheds (green
ovals) and the resident-driven garden (purple star). The images illustrate an “open container shed” (top right) and “UGs” (bottom right). Sources: “ved Milestedet” (map), Jiesper
Pedersen (photos). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 3. Waste separation solutions made by residents. A semi-committed family have installed an IKEA kitchen with four separation bins in a drawer (left), and a very-committed
family have created a solution via seven different IKEA boxes as well as residual waste bin under the sink (right). Photo: Jiesper Pedersen.

Table 2
Curbside containers with public access in the apartment association's living areas: 21 containers on wheels and 15 UG containers for six waste types. Numbers in paragraph
refer to locations shown on the map (see Fig. 2).

Location No of containers per location Volume Waste Fraction

Unlocked sheds (containers on wheels)

Nør/Mag (no.4) 1 1100 L Cardboard
Lillekær (no.5) 1 660 L Plastic
Lillekær (no.6) 1 240e660 L Metal
1 240e660 L Paper
1 240 L Glass
2 240 L Bio
(Total: 21)
UG container installations Bio
HT1 (no. 1 1 3000 L Metal/Glass
HT2 (no.2) 1 2500 L/2500 L Plastic
HT2 (no.2) 1 5000 L paper
Nør/Mag (no.3) 1 5000 L Small cardboard (packaging)
1 5000 L
(Total: 15)

Table 3 separation, and the system. Additionally they were asked which
Geographical distribution of informants for the methods: Home visits, Survey, and waste fractions they separated (in total eight), who is responsible
Interviews.
for waste generation in households (consumers, retailers, manu-
Method HT1 HT2 Nørrekær Lillekær Blank Total factures, or policies), and if they think the waste gets mixed or stays
Home visits 2 3 2 2 10 separated. The data was processed in SPSS and R. Residents were
Survey 19 33 25 10 3 90 classified as very-committed if they stated always in “separation
Interviews 42 23 31 16 112 performance” and separated all eight waste fractions, semi-
 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285
committed if they separated waste often, middle or seldom, and
non-separators if they never separated.
2.2.4. Waste composition study: Weighing and visual assessment
A waste composition study was designed and adjusted via
introductory assessments made by the municipality on March 2nd
and 10th; involving the fractions of cardboard, plastic, and biowaste
(20 containers). From this, three categories of source qualities were
defined: “Good” (no disposal mistakes); “Small mistakes” (e.g.,
tetrapak in plastic containers); and “Crucial mistakes” (e.g., bags of
mixed waste in wrong source containers; metal or plastic in bio-
waste containers). Systematic assessments performed on April 6th
and June 15th involved weighing and visual observation for UGs
(HT1, HT2, and Nør/Mag) and visual inspection of open containers
(Lillekær and Nør/Mag). By comparing weight and volume of the
UG fractions examined, a rough estimation of hidden errors was
possible (e.g., that biowaste has a higher density than plastic).
Additionally, open containers were assessed frequently by re-
searchers during the fieldwork.
3. Results
3.1. Home visits
The results show that residents in eight households were
perfectionistic in sorting waste. They sorted all possible waste and
showed interest in improving the rate of materials separated. They
showed interest in improving their knowledge to separate correctly
(e.g., via the Internet, contacting the municipality or friends) and to
separate more (i.e., reducing the amount of mixed residual waste).
Although they found it easier to use the waste chutes, they were
willing to invest the extra effort needed to go to the outdoor
curbside containers. This perception of extra effort included: extra
time spent on separating and searching for knowledge; a longer
walking distance to the outdoor containers; and the fact that waste
storing occupied more-than-wanted space in the home. Some of
these residents perceived food waste or cans from food waste as
disgusting, but adapted by inventing solutions to cope with this
inconvenience: “We like canned fish, but the cans smell, so we store
metal waste on the balcony,” said a 30-year old father, while a 33-
year old mother stated that she carried out biowaste daily to avoid
potential smell. The residents in these households were charac-
terized by giving waste separation high priority, which made them
overcome challenges related to inconvenience and disgust. In some
cases, only one person in the household was very-committed but
pushed the other members to increase their performance. From
now these types of households are referred to as very-committed.
Two households were less perfectionist and the residents pre-
sented a more casual approach to the separation processes. They
sometimes mixed recyclable waste in residual when separation
became challenging and inconvenient (i.e., if they needed to invest
more effort than they wished, experienced lack of time or had
storage challenges). If waste separation required more space than
they could hide behind kitchen flaps or drawers, they preferred to
segregate fewer fractions. A 30-year old mother with Chilean roots
stated: “If there is only one piece of metal or plastic when we cook,
then we put it in the bag for residual waste. I only bother to
separate it if there is more of the same kind.” This exemplifies that
recyclable materials were sometimes thrown in residual waste if
residents did not know how to separate an item correctly or only
had a few items to separate. This category of residents is referred to
as semi-committed. The very-committed showed a better under-
standing of correct separation. In a waste-quiz, they had 80% or
5
more accurate answers, while the semi-committed family taking
the test had 70%.
For both groups, waste separation was found to interfere with
the social order (Douglas, 1966) and the cultural perceptions of a
representable home (from now on referred to as household order).
In general, residents valued a clean home, perceived biowaste as
unhygienic the minute it entered the waste bin; and did not like
waste to be visible and accessible to kids. The difference was that
although all households emphasized household order, and found
waste separation inconvenient, the very-committed did not
compromise waste separation and invented solutions to cope with
the challenges. For the semi-committed, disgust, inconvenience
and interference with household order represented barriers that
made them separate less. Fig. 2 exemplifies how a semi-committed
household (left) preferred to hide the waste and separate fewer
fractions, while a very-committed household (right) separated all
fractions in noticeable waste boxes.
All households connected waste separation with pro-
environmental or pro-society support. Such sustainable values
(Corral-Verdugo et al., 2011; EC, 2017c; Hargreaves, 2011) and
resident perceptions of waste separation as a correct ‘behavior’
operated as motivational drivers, which made residents overcome
challenges of disorder, disgust, and inconvenience. Here, the com-
bination of time and sustainable values were critical factors
affecting the commitment and waste activities. Some households
were less busy (e.g., retired, part-time contract) than others (e.g.,
families with small children). A retired couple expressed moderate,
sustainable values but separated all waste possible, while a young
family with similar moderate values and a tight weekly schedule
separated less than they could. Other families with a tight schedule
and strong values were found to be willing to invest the extra time,
compromising their wish for convenience and household order.
The tendency was that when sustainable values were held by res-
idents the better, they adapted to and coped with challenges.
Nevertheless, having strong, sustainable values related to waste
and waste separation (in the disposal process) was not present in
the consumption process (e.g., buying organic, green-labeled or
products with less packaging). None of the examined residents
indicated signs of green purchase actions (Joshi and Rahman, 2015),
nor reducing consumption or generation of household waste. The
focus was on product utility and fulfilling needs, buying what they
knew, liked, thought was healthy and to a fair price. It was not until
the use (cooking moment) and disposal process, when products
became waste that they indicated awareness, such as complaining
about high amounts of packaging materials.
3.2. Interactions by the bins: interviews
Informal interviews were conducted with residents between 11
and 81 years of age, from 112 households representing 25% of total
households (112/455). They lasted for 4e45 min. Eight households
(7%) expressed strong commitment (sorting all waste possible). A
vast majority (88%) stated that waste separation was a reasonable
and correct thing to do, but they did not stretch sorting actions
beyond what was convenient for them. Six persons (5%) did not sort
waste and will be referred to as non-separators. The most frequent
reasons to not commit were perceptions of separation as incon-
venient (distance and spending extra time in the separation pro-
cess) and that It was too complicated to understand the system (too
many different waste fractions). Besides being complicated, a
retired non-separating woman stated that she had given up
because society had developed in an irresponsible direction:
“Especially young people consume too much. They buy and throw
6 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285
out, and society does not do anything to stop this growing con-
sumption.” A non-Danish speaking Arabic couple indicated that
their waste was thrown in the waste chutes. A 50-year old man said
that he only produced the same type of waste and that separation,
therefore, was of no use; while two 30-year old men did not care
about where their waste was thrown. The separating residents
(95%) expressed that they separated waste because they “were
asked to [by authorities]," as well as that waste separation was
believed to support environment, future generations or society
(sustainable orientation/values). Several separating residents had
witnessed other residents making disposal mistakes, but although
they perceived this as a social disorder, they did not discourage it.
“You know you do not interfere in other people's affairs,” said a 30-
year old man of Arabic heritage.
The following topics were not addressed by researchers but
initiated by residents: Around 50% of the approached residents
complained about lack of space or wished to get a space-reducing
storage system in their kitchen. Visible waste in the home was for
the majority not appropriate and was perceived as unhygienic,
disgusting, or inappropriate. The very-committed said they
compromised themselves or invented solutions of coping with lack
of kitchen space.
Mistrust in the economic system was expressed by a minority of
residents. Two households expressed dissatisfaction with a specific
kind of food packaging: “Sometimes we have packaging, which is
made of metal, plastic, and paper glued together. You can't separate
it. Where do you throw it?” asked a 30-year old very-committed
mother. Her husband added: “Why don't they produce something
made of degradable materials? I know it is possible."
Six residents in HT1, HT2, and Nørrekær expressed uncertainty
about if the waste fractions were mixed in the waste trucks or later
in the process. I have looked from my window and it looks like they
put different fractions in the same truck. Do they mix it?” asked a
32-year old very-committed mother from Ghana. Another 33-year
very-committed mother stated that: “We separate here and at my
job. But does it matter? Do they mix the waste we separate? I would
like to know that!” While those very-committed residents
continued to separate, the system-mistrust was by others used it as
an argument to separate less. “Why should I support this [the waste
separation system] when they [manufacturers] produce things that
I can't sort anyway?” asked a 25-year old non-separating mother.
“Does it matter what we are doing? Or does it [the waste] get mixed
and burned anyway”, asked a 25-year semi-committed man.
3.3. User survey
The response rate was 20%, with a sample of 93 adults (52
women and 41 men) between 18 and 92 years of age (M ¼ 55.8
years), and involving nine ethnicities (88% were ethnic Danish). All
reported that they were committed to daily waste separation. Forty
percent (37) were considered very-committed. Sixty percent (56)
were classified as semi-committed. No non-separators returned the
questionnaire. The responses neither mirrored the ethnic diversity
of the population, nor the commitment variation previously
observed (section 3.2), and are therefore analyzed as based on very-
and semi-committed (and mainly ethnic Danish) residents.2 This
was done to ensure validity of analyzes and results.
On average the separating residents express that they sort 7 out
of the 8 waste fractions examined. The fractions most separated
were glass (100%), cardboard (96%), paper and plastic (90e92%).
2
However, it is possible that the most committed are more likely to participate in
the survey: 38 very-committed answered, which is equal to 8% of the total popu-
lation (38/455).
The materials least separated were biowaste (76%) and hazardous
waste (72%).
Ninety-two percent expressed that waste is a resource we
should recycle. However, 44% stated that they found waste
disgusting. Both very-committed (M ¼ 4.9) and semi-committed
(4.3) find waste a natural part of life. However, the very-committed
(3.0) think waste is less disgusting than semi-committed (M ¼ 3.5).
Separating residents reported difficulties in changing to a new
habit (M ¼ 2.6) to be an essential barrier. They found “time”
(M ¼ 1.8), “knowledge about fractions” (M ¼ 1.8), and “walking
distance” (M ¼ 1.6) to be less critical. 93% were motivated by
environmental values and 73% by supporting society. The essential
motivators on the ground were needs for more insight in the
recycling system: information about the positive effects of recycling
(M ¼ 3.6) and to be ensured that the sorted waste would stay
separated and recycled (M ¼ 3.5). It was less important if the waste
chutes were closed (M ¼ 2.2), while receiving kitchen separation
designs (M ¼ 3.0) would increase motivation. Thirty-one percent
believed or was in doubt if the separated waste was mixed after
collection. Of this 23% very-committed and 54% semi-committed.
Forty-three percent of the separating residents expressed that in-
dustry is most responsible for waste generation in Danish house-
holds, while 25% found households to be most responsible of the
two.
3.4. Waste composition study
For Cardboard, Plastic and Biowaste fractions, disposal mistakes
were found in 79% of the examined containers in the April
assessment (15 of 19 containers), which were reduced to 67% (12 of
18) in June. As illustrated in Table 4, the best fraction qualities were
shown for plastic. In the last assessment, all six containers had good
quality, and three had improved from small to no mistakes. Card-
board had small mistakes: often plastic bags. No crucial errors were
identified in the UG cardboard and plastic containers. All biowaste
containers had errors, and 80% had crucial errors. Nine of the bio
containers were examined in both assessments. Three improved
from “crucial” to “small mistakes (i.e., a plastic bag, newspaper,
plastic folder)," while six remained with crucial mistakes (i.e., bags
of residual waste, metal cans, metal folders, tetrapak).
Field observations (researchers) identified good sorting qualities
in glass, paper and metal containers. Frequent mistakes were
observed in the small bio containers (b240), including bags of re-
sidual waste. Separated plastic packaging was found in cardboard
containers, while separated cardboard was found in plastic con-
tainers. In Lillekær, tetrapak (juice and milk containers) were found
in the plastic and cardboard containers (Fig. 4). Sometimes very-
committed residents and service technicians corrected misplaced
materials in the open containers and can be classified as the
“intermediary” (Petersen and Christiansen, 2017). The intermediary
did not correct misplaced bags of residual waste. There were no
containers for residual waste in the unlocked sheds (see Fig. 5).
No analyses or observations regarding waste collection/separa-
tion and its composition before and after the proposed research
exist.
4. Discussion
Given the results from the case study, it is possible to define
some strategies aiming to improve the source separated collection
of solid waste in apartment buildings. This involves an analysis of
the theoretical approach to evaluate and improve user commit-
ment, to reshape the EU policy strategy, as well as considerations
regarding data collection methods, and assessment of disposal
mistakes.
 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285 7

Table 4
Visual assessments conducted for visible assessment of underground containers (UG) and open containers (b) in waste sheds.

Location & map no., Number of Type Assessment April 6th, 2017 Assessment June 15th, 2017 Description Change
p. 5 containers
Good Small Crucial Good Small Crucial
(none) mistakes mistakes (none) mistakes mistakes

HT1 1 1 UG-Plastic x x Tetrapak Improved

1 UG-Bio x x Residual, metal, Improved
tetrapak
Newspaper
HT2 2 1 UG-Plastic x x Improved
1 UG-Plastic (E) x e
1 UG-Bio x x x x Plastic bag No change
1 UG-Bio x x Metal, plastic No change
Nør/Mag 3 1 UG-Plastic x x No change
1 UG-Bio (E) x Metal e
1 b1100- x (E) e
Cardboard
1 b660-Plastic x x No change
2 b240-Bio xx x x Residual bag Improved/no
Pizza box change
6 1 b1100- x (E) Plastic bag e
Lillekær —5 Cardboard
1 b660-Plastic x x Meat in plastic pack No change
2 b240-Bio xx xx Residual bag No change
1 b1100- x (E) Plastic bag e
Cardboard
1 b660-Plastic x x Plastic folder Improved
(residual)
2 b240-Bio xx xx Residual bag No change
Paper
Total 20 3 8 7 6 6 6 Improved

Note: Empty not evaluated containers are marked (E).

Fig. 4. Content from UG plastic container in Nør/Mag indicating good source quality: ¾ full, weighing 75 kg, one small (cardboard) error visible (left). UG metal container in Nør/
Mag with good quality: containing beer and soda cans (right). Photos: Lene Sehested, Municipality of Rødovre.

Fig. 5. Disposal mistakes in containers in Lillekær. Tetrapak found in a cardboard (left) and a plastic container (right). Photo: Jiesper Pedersen.
8 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285
4.1. The implications of values as drivers for increased source
separation
User participation is a critical component to develop and
implement waste separation in households (Ghani et al., 2013;
Ordon ~ ez et al., 2015). In the literature, conventional, individualistic
and rationalist approaches to behavior change (Ajzen, 1991; Becker,
1978) focus on individual's beliefs, attitudes, and values as in-
dicators of waste separation behavior (Osuch et al., 2016; Stoeva
and Alriksson, 2017; Taylor and Todd, 1995). This theoretical
framework has in the past decades been represented in the EU
implementation plans (EC, 2015a, 2008, 2003) suggesting that
human activity may be changed by identifying and modifying pro-
environmental beliefs (Castagna et al., 2013; Longe et al., 2009;
Osuch et al., 2016) via campaigning and educational policy in-
struments (EC, 2018, 2015c, 2003). However, the results of this
research show that values alone do not drive social change
regarding waste separation in apartment households.
In theories of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) it is thought that
social change depends upon values and attitudes, which are
believed to drive the kinds of behavior that individuals choose to
adopt (Ajzen, 1991; Shove, 2010). Moreover, that media influence
and education affect individual agency (EC, 2015c, 2003; Shove,
2010). On one side, theories of behavior, argue that individual
attitude, awareness, and values lead to increased user participation
in waste separation (Ayob and Sheau-Ting, 2016; Stoeva and
Alriksson, 2017; Zhang et al., 2015), while other studies, primarily
based on theories of practice, argue that approaching the routines
of everyday life provides a stronger foothold for social change
(Gjerris and Gaiani, 2014; Hargreaves, 2011; Paddock, 2015; Shove
et al., 2012). The results of the participatory method in this study
(household visits) reveal that sustainable valuables arguably are
essential drivers of social change in the field, but that awareness,
attitude, and values cannot alone explain the degree of user
commitment.
In accordance with recent surveys and literature (EC, 2014; EU,
2011; Gallup, 2009; Ghani et al., 2013), the residents examined
were positive towards waste separation, expressing commitment
moved by a belief that recycling supports society, environment, or
future generations. This can be considered sustainable values
(Corral-Verdugo et al., 2011; Hargreaves, 2011; Nielsen et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, this did not adequately explain the actual separation
commitment for the majority of residents (88e93%). Some resi-
dents have transformed these values into actions and some into
inactions (Chappells et al., 2011). In the literature, the existence of a
value-action gap is widely discussed (Blake, 1999; Shove, 2010). It
refers to people who express pro-environmental values, though
they do not always act in alignment with those values. In general,
households consist of repeated daily obligations and routines. In
this study, waste separation was identified as competing with the
existing network of routines (e.g., cooking, cleaning, homework).
Therefore time became a factor affecting the final user commit-
ment. Although expressing good intentions, the majority of resi-
dents either deliberately excluded challenging waste fractions (i.e.,
biowaste) or simply sorted less than they could to avoid extra work.
The key barriers identified, besides other household routines,
were perceptions of inconvenience regarding the extra effort
needed to separate waste (e.g., interim storage, increased
complexity, knowledge search, potential extra cleaning with bio-
waste bag leaks) and household order (i.e., visible waste, disgusting
smell, hygiene risk). However, for separating residents, environ-
mental justifications seemed essential to construct the separation
activity as meaningful and as a way to legitimate the extra work
they needed to invest to separate and to cope with violations of
household order. Several semi-committed expressed that they
wished to support the environment or society, while their actions
and statements indicated that they prioritized household order and
convenience higher.
The network of household routines and available time (to carry
out all daily routines), as well as other issues such as household
order and extra effort interfered with a full implementation of a
waste separation routine in the majority of households. Fig. 6 il-
lustrates how the degree of resident commitment depended
strongly on the strength of “sustainable values” and additionally on
“time available” and the residents “willingness to compromise
household order” (see Fig. 7).
In some cases, strong, sustainable values overweigh the daily life
challenges related to separation (Users 1e2). Of the ten household
visits, eight households were very-committed (i.e., separating all
waste possible). Of them, four had strong values and busy daily life
(i.e., little time available), while four had middle-strong values and
a less-busy daily life (i.e., available time because they were retired,
worked part-time, or didn't have a job). However the result was the
same, they separated everything possible. The remaining two
households had semi-strong values and a busy daily life. They had a
tight daily schedule involving routines such as preparing meals,
preparing children for school, work, laundry, etc., and also to
finding time for leisure. Their daily life activities/routines interfered
with the obligation of waste separation resulting in less separated
waste compared to the four households sharing the same middle-
strong values. The amount and intensity of daily routines were a
factor affecting the waste separation outcome in households with
middle or low sustainable values (Users 3e5).
However very few residents expressed strong values. And they
sometimes expressed frustration of compromising household or-
der. Sustainable values were present amongst non-separators.
However, this did not make them separate waste. For this, feed-
back between the users and the system is crucial to avoid adverse
outcomes of the users’ perceived challenges and inconveniences to
support contentment and commitment continuously. To cope with
obstacles on the ground, the core policy focus, needs to both to
focus at campaigning/education and separation as a routine, and
local solutions which increase household order and user
convenience.
The relatively modest amount of waste separated by the ma-
jority of residents (semi-committed) represents an unfulfilled po-
tential to improve recycling rates. It does not necessarily indicate a
value-action gap, but that waste separation values are not always
robust enough to overcome everyday challenges, wants, needs,
obligations, and other values.
4.2. Implications regarding data collection
A discrepancy was found between the data collected. Analyzing
the distribution of very-committed, semi-committed and non-
separators (percentage of each category), the survey revealed a
ratio of 40:60:0, while the interviews revealed a ratio of 7:88:5. A
method of distributing questionnaires and making the users deliver
them back to the researchers has been applied in recent literature
~ ez et al., 2015). Home visit and survey methods, in this
(e.g., Ordon
study, were not sufficient for capturing a representative sample of
the total resident population (including non-separators). Analysis
of data entirely based on such methods may bias and decrease
validity of results. Alternatively, a method of systematically
approaching informants (e.g., door-to-door survey) or a pre-
selected pool of informants (e.g., Boldero, 1995; Stoeva and
Alriksson, 2017) may cope with such type of sampling bias and
may improve the validity of results. Additionally, analyzing pro-
environmental actions, based on qualitative data collection (e.g.,
Chappells et al., 2011; Hargreaves, 2011) allows the researchers to
 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285 9

Fig. 6. The drivers of user commitment in waste separation: “sustainable values” (left), Household order” (middle), and “time available and pressure of household routines”
(middle) defined the residents final waste separation commitment (right).

Fig. 7. An unlocked container shed in Lillekær. Cardboard and plastic containers (right) and the smaller containers (left) are more or less identical for non-aware residents. Photo
Jiesper Pedersen.

evaluate the informant's reliability in ways surveys by nature are increase the number of separating citizens, while increased
less capable of doing. This study stresses the importance of awareness of reducing the natural resources consumed was less
capturing the lived life, and the real considerations behind peoples important (Osuch et al., 2016). If values alone do not drive waste
choices and actions (Chappells et al., 2011; Shove, 2010) which does separation or expressed more precisely, if the strength of sustain-
not exclude the use of surveys but encourages a face-to-face contact able values do not determine the rate of separated waste in an
with informants. apartment household (where economic incentives are not applied
on individual households), then there is room for rethinking the
policies and evaluation methods.
4.3. Rethinking the EU strategy focus
This paper suggests that implementation of waste separation
needs to be addressed as the implementation of an additional
4.3.1. Capture the complexity of daily life
household routine, which needs to fit into the existing network of
The EU suggests two types of policy instruments, economic and
household routines (e.g., Hargreaves, 2011; Shove et al., 2012),
educational (EC, 2018, 2003). The results reveal that the residents
rather than the implementation of a single standing behavior. It is
examined have obtained a strong habit of separating glass, paper,
argued that the idea of desires and attitudes as driving behavior
and metal. The relatively strong separation activity regarding glass
produces a blind spot at a particularly crucial point: making it
and metal may have been institutionalized via user practices
impossible to see how the contours and costs of daily life (Shove,
enforced by the Danish return and deposit system (Andersen, 2017;
2010), which interfere with the aim of well-intended policies
DEPA, 1999). This may reflect a positive effect of economic in-
(Hargreaves, 2011; Paddock, 2015). Integrating social practice the-
struments generating user perceptions of glass bottles as valuable,
ory in policymaking introduces an approach to embracing the
supporting the construction of separation routines and social
variation of social conditions, as well as individualistic psycholog-
change in waste practices (Osuch et al., 2016).
ical behavior. The social practice theory provides a possibility to de-
Arguably, campaigning has had a fundamental impact on
centers individuals and turns attention also towards the social and
awareness and a comprehensive positive user approach. The
the collective organization of practices, which offers a wide range of
awareness of EU citizens in caring about the natural environment is
everyday life footholds for implementing change (Hargreaves,
growing (Osuch et al., 2016), as well as the number of EU citizens
2011; Shove et al., 2012) dealing with the entire network of
expressing commitment in waste separation moved by the
household routines, as well as perceptions of household order and
reasoning of it as a sustainable activity (EC, 2014; Gallup, 2009).
mistrust. Arguably, the core of the EU policy approach has a po-
Nevertheless, a study in Poland identified that financial penalties
tential for improvements.
and reducing the payment for separated municipal waste could
10 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285
4.3.2. Biowaste: a disgusting challenge
Biowaste is an EU priority with a still unrealized potential
(Bourguignon, 2017, 2015; Ordon ~ ez et al., 2015; Vito, 2011), and also
identified as the fraction with the second lowest commitment in
this study. This may be due to implementation of policies at varying
speed across the Member States, regions and municipalities
(Bourguignon, 2015), as well as related to storage, convenience and
collection times (Ghani et al., 2013; Vassanadumrongdee and
Kittipongvises, 2018). This emphasize that the integration of
waste activities in daily life routines are crucial (Gjerris and Gaiani,
2014).
It is argued that 25% of residual waste from Danish households is
appropriate for recycling (Edjabou et al., 2016), which indicates a
potential for both waste reduction and increased source separation.
Biowaste represent a potential disorder related to disgust and hy-
giene (Douglas, 1966) which makes it a challenge for optimal sep-
aration commitment.
The key challenges identified were perceptions of disgust,
interim storage, and potential extra cleaning, which may be due to a
behavioral trade-offs presenting separation commitment as a
choice between acting sustainable or preserve household order. It
represents a contextual shaping of cultural perceptions of biowaste
as something disgusting and a potential health risk, as well as the
importance expressed by residents of presenting a clean home for
the family and guests. Technical and behavioral solutions on the
ground are possible, such as precautionary information about bio
bag durability (to decrease the number of leaks and extra cleaning),
or installing space optimizing separation systems in kitchens for all
waste fractions (to hide the waste, improve interim storage, and
‘nudging’ residents to separate all waste factions). Alternative so-
lutions may imply holistic approaches that implement awareness
of recycling loops in everyday life routines. The apartment associ-
ation examined, had a user-driven garden (see Fig. 1), which pro-
vides an opportunity to install composting containers. In this type
of solution the users are present in both the separation and recy-
cling process and benefits from the final result in terms of fertile
soil. Such practice related experiences, which potentially increase
the users' awareness of the biological circle may shape perceptions
of biowaste as something beneficial and valuable (i.e., compost to
the garden), rather than a disgusting health treat. As well as reduce
waste management costs if implemented on a large scale.
4.3.3. Biowaste: a disgusting challenge3. Increase transparency and
system trust
Although positive attitudes towards the concept of waste sep-
aration (EC, 2014), mistrust to the system was discussed amongst
residents. The user perception of “extra effort” implies that waste
handling today (separating waste) is more complicated than the
previous (mixing all waste). Because the users need to invest more
awareness, time, and energy in the present waste activities, this has
created a new need to evaluate the system and if the system returns
the extra effort invested by the users. The residents’ overall un-
derstanding of the recycling processes were low, which created
rumors and doubt amongst citizens if the waste separated by res-
idents would be mixed during the municipal collection operations
or later in the process. This lack of knowledge was a driver of
mistrust, which made residents request more insight about the
local recycling processes and the positive global effects of recycling
(e.g., for environment and society).
Although awareness is growing (Gallup, 2009; Osuch et al.,
2016), more than 30% of the separating residents in this study
indicate mistrust towards industrial actors and the waste system.
From a user perspective industry and manufactures of packaging
waste are actors, which should also contribute to the sustainable
conversion by reducing waste. At the same time, none of the
examined residents indicated any awareness of their responsibility
in the consumption process (i.e., when shopping). The EU and
member states present a priority order of five strategies to cope
with resource scarcity and environmental damage: reduce, reuse,
recycling, energy recovery and reduced landfilling. However, the EU
focus is on recycling and recovery, while reduction of waste is less
prioritized (Bourguignon, 2017; Sanderson, 2015). The campaigned
and applied strategies contradict (EC, 2008; Gharfalkara et al., 2015;
Van Ewijk and Stegemann, 2016). Recycling may support “to
decrease the consumption of primary resources, but it does not
tackle the causes, only the symptoms” (Bartl, 2014). According to
EU data, recycling has increased 42% and incineration 43% between
2005 and 2017, while reduction of total waste decreased around 2%
during the same period (Eurostat, 2019b) and total production of
household waste increased around 2% (Eurostat, 2019a). The top
priority of the waste hierarchy seems less prioritized. Several of the
residents examined, experienced increasing numbers of packaging
waste. Between 2005 and 2016, EU packaging waste increased 10%,
and of this plastic packaging increased 15% (Eurostat, 2019c). The
frustration held by citizens, who are being asked by the system to
separate waste, as a ‘necessary’ citizen action for society and
environment, is inadvertently at the same time opposed to
increased amounts of packaging waste. This may not seem fair from
a citizen perspective nor sustainable from a system perspective. It
may obstruct the system's attempts to motivate its citizens in the
long-term.
Targeting shopping behavior implies an opportunity to lower
both generation of bio- and packaging waste. However, conflicting
interests are identified in the field: “waste generation is a huge
business, and numerous stakeholders are not interested in reducing
waste” (Bartl, 2014). Although a ban of surplus purchases to
“discourage of ‘buy one get one free actions’” was recommended
(EC, 2010) there are no signs of implementation of such initiatives
in the EU strategy (EC, 2018), although this may reduce waste
generation, greenhouse gas emissions and side streams (i.e., waste)
from recycling processes (Bartl, 2014); and in the entire
production-waste system (Le Que
re

et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2011),
which may improve the image of a sustainable (waste) system.
4.4. Reducing disposal mistakes on a local level
For the fractions of biowaste, plastic, and cardboard, three types
of recurrent disposal mistakes were observed throughout the
fieldwork. Tetrapak belongs to the waste source “small cardboard.”
In the literature uncertainty, related mistakes are referred to as “the
structural mismatch between the layman logic and the logic of the
waste management system that causes uncertainty” (Henriksson
et al., 2010; Ordon ~ ez et al., 2015). The layman logic (residents'
interpretation) in Lillekær, is likely to have caused tetrapak (con-
sisting of both plastic and cardboard material) to be defined as
either plastic or cardboard. This identifies a gap between the
technical system and user interpretation related to information and
disposal accessibility (i.e., no small cardboard containers were
installed in Lillekær). Awareness related mistakes, such as bags of
separated plastic were found in cardboard containers, and sepa-
rated cardboard was found in plastic containers. Those errors of
separated materials are possibly caused by separating residents,
which have not been aware in the disposal moment (e.g., being in a
hurry) because plastic and cardboard containers appeared almost
identical (having the same color, height, and lid) making it difficult
to tell the difference unless carefully reading the fraction descrip-
tion. Highlighting the fraction identity (e.g., via fraction colors) is
recommended.
Crucial disposal mistakes, such as bags of mixed (not-separated)
waste were found in the open cardboard, plastic and bio containers.
 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285
They are probably delivered by non-aware and careless non-
separators, rather than aware residents. This indicates a need for
residual curbside containers, which are not installed in the outside
living areas. The waste chutes do not alone cover the need for
disposal of residual waste. This was expected by authorities
beforehand.
Tetrapak, food in plastic packaging, pizza boxes and metal was
found in biowaste; all of which are items containing biowaste. A
solution to avoid mixing of inorganic and biological ‘nutrients’, and
avoid technical nutrients in the environment (Skene, 2017) could be
to install the ‘new’ residual containers by the open shed entrances
to make them the most accessible containers and relocate biowaste
to the least accessible locations in the sheds.
5. Conclusions
The source separation strategy as pointed out by the EU and
implemented in member states do to some degree support
implementation of waste separation in apartment households, but
it does not contain the full potential of implementing social change
in the field. This research argues that values alone do not drive
implementation, which is backed up in recent literature arguing
that awareness and environmental protection is not the most
critical component for citizens.
The results show that residents perform waste separation with
different intensification and that the majority of households (93%)
has a yet unrealized potential to separate more. Of the sample
examined 7% (very-committed) residents separated all waste
possible, 88% separated what was convenient, while 5% was iden-
tified as non-separators. The residents stretching to separate as-
much-as-possible-waste expressed strong sustainable values, or
they had a daily life with sufficient available time (e.g., retired,
unemployed, had a part-time job) to engage in waste separation.
Although almost all residents held some degree of pro-
environmental awareness, sustainable values were simply not
strong enough to overcome perceived inconvenience and time
scarcity. Barriers interfering with the ‘good intentions’, were mainly
available time combined with other household routines, and the
perception of household order. The ladder involved the inconve-
nience regarding lacking space for interim storing, hygiene and
potential extra cleaning (i.e., leakage of biowaste bags). Addition-
ally and less visible, mistrust to the system represented potential
barriers.
The study recommends minor shifts in the policy approach to
not only target waste separation as a single standing action but as a
new routine that needs to be implemented in the existing network
of household routines. A focus on increased “awareness” (shaping
values), “convenience”, “household order”, and “trust in the waste
system” represent four keys to unlock the presently unrealized
potential in household waste separation. The more simple, easy,
and convenient separation practices appear, the higher the user
commitment is likely to be. Furthermore, the EU statistics
demonstrate modest improvements on waste reduction and
increasing numbers of packaging waste. This may reveal policy gaps
in the overall waste strategy, which are crucial not only to develop
sustainable societal systems but also to maintain the users’ trust in
the system and provide reliable campaigning of a sustainable
system.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have declared no conflicts of interest in this article.
The Municipality of Rødovre founded the fieldwork to gain
anthropological insight in the users' motivations and barriers as
well as to get recommendations for system changes. This was
11
communicated via a research report (Pedersen, 2017). The munic-
ipality was not involved or engaged in this article, however
improved the use and sharing of the data collected.
Acknowledgments
The research was completed with great support from Rødovre
Municipal Department of Environment and Lene Sehested; the
board of the building association of “Ved Milestedet”, Klaus Lind
Bentsen and Mogens Jacobi; its administrative office (Ved Mile-
stedet, AKB Rødovre, www.milestedet-akb.dk): Søren Lillevang and
May-Brit Pakka Pritzl and the service technicians (especially Bent
Svensson); as well as the openness and participation of residents.
Thank you to all reviewers who engaged in the improvement of the
article; to Reviewer 1 for specification on the aim; to Reviewer 3 for
proposing relevant literature, and in particular to Paul Chakroff,
Institute of Social Science at the University of Lisbon, for termi-
nology suggestions and English language support.
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50, 179e211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Andersen, A., 2017. Deposit System Law - Denmark [WWW Document]. anker-
andersen.Dk, 9.20.17. http://anker-andersen.dk/deposit-laws/denmark.aspx.
Ayob, S.F., Sheau-Ting, L., 2016. Key determinants of waste separation intention
among students on campus. In: The 4th International Building Control Con-
ference 2016 (IBCC 2016). MATEC Web Conf. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/
20166 IBCC 2016 600066.
Bartl, A., 2014. Moving from recycling to waste prevention: a review of barriers and
enables. Waste Manag. Res. 32, 3e18. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X14541986.
Becker, G.S., 1978. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. University of Chi-
cago Press, Chicago.
Blake, J., 1999. Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions
between national policy and local experience. Local Environ. 4, 257e278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725599.
Boldero, J., 1995. The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: the role of
attitudes, intentions, and situational Factors1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25,
440e462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01598.x.
Bourguignon, D., 2015. Briefing Understanding Waste Management Policy Chal-
lenges and Opportunities. EPRS j European Parliamentary Research Service.
Bourguignon, D., 2017. Circular Economy Package Four Legislative Proposals on
Waste (No. PE 603.954). Members’ Research Service, Brussels.
Castagna, A., Casagranda, M., Zeni, A., Girelli, E., Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Apostol, T.,
2013. 3R’S from citizens point OF view and their proposal from a case-study, 75.
U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D.
Chappells, H., Medd, W., Shove, E., 2011. Disruption and change: drought and the
inconspicuous dynamics of garden lives. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 12, 743e756. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2011.609944.
Cobo, S., Dominguez-Ramos, A., Irabien, A., 2018. From linear to circular integrated
waste management systems: a review of methodological approaches. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 135, 279e295. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.08.
003.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Mireles-Acosta, J., Tapia-Fonllem, C., Fraijo-Sing, B., 2011.
Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: a study of pro-ecological, frugal,
equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective wellbeing. Hum. Ecol.
Rev. 18, 95e104. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5020711.
DAKOFA, 2018. Article: Waste Regulation in Denmark - Waste and Resource
Network Denmark [WWW Document]. Waste and Resource Network Denmark,
7.18.18. https://dakofa.com/element/test-article-today/.
DEPA, 1999. Waste in Denmark.
Douglas, M., 1966. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and
Taboo. Routledge and Keegan Paul.
DST, 2017. Boliger Efter Beboertype, Område, Tid, Anvendelse Og Udlejningsforhold.
EC, 2003. EU Waste Policy: the Story behind the Strategy. European Commission.
EC, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Counsil of 19
November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives, European Com-
mission. Directive. EUR-Lex: 32008L0098, Brussles.
EC, 2010. Summary of the Green Paper Stakeholder Consultation.
EC, 2014. Attitudes of Europeans towards Waste Management and Resource Effi-
ciency. https://doi.org/10.2779/14825.
EC, 2015a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament , the
Council, the European Economic and Social Commitee of the Regions Closing
the Loop - an EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy (No. COM/2015/0614
Final). EUR-Lex - 52015DC0614, Brussels.
EC, 2015b. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (No. COM(2015) 595 Final). 2015/
12 J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285
0275(COD), Brussels, 2.12.2015.
EC, 2015c. Circular Economy Strategy: Closing the Loop - an EU Action Plan for the
Circular Economy [WWW Document]. European Commision, Environment,
Circular Economy Strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/
. Longe, E.O., Longe, O.O., Ukpebor, E., 2009. People's perception on household solid
EC, 2017a. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Re-
gions on the Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan, European
Commission Report. COM(2017) 33 final.
EC, 2017b. Commission Helps 8 Member States to Improve Their Municipal Waste
Management. Support to Implementation - Municipal Waste. Environment,
European Commission.
EC, 2017c. Consumption [WWW Document]. Environment, European Commission,
12.8.17. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/green-growth/sustainable-
consumption/index_en.htm.
EC, 2018. Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan: 2018 Circular
Economy Package [WWW Document]. European Commission, 7.23.18. http://ec.
europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/.
Edjabou, M.E., Petersen, C., Scheutz, C., Astrup, T.F., 2016. Food waste from Danish
households: generation and composition. Waste Manag. 52, 256e268.
Eriksson, O., Carlsson Reich, M., Frostell, B., Bjo€rklund, A., Assefa, G., Sundqvist, J.-O.,
Granath, J., Baky, A., Thyselius, L., 2005. Municipal solid waste management
from a systems perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 241e252. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.JCLEPRO.2004.02.018.
EU, 2011. Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment Special Euro-
barometer 365 e EB75.2 (Summary Presentation).
European Parliament, 2018. Circular Economy: More Recycling of Household Waste,
Less Landfilling. News j European Parliament. Press room, News, European
Parliament.
Eurostat, 2017. Housing Statistics [WWW Document]. Statistics Explained, 11.26.17.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Housing_statistics.
Eurostat, 2019a. Waste Generated by Households by Year and Waste Category
[WWW Document]. TGM table, 1.21.19. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/
refreshTableAction.do?tab¼table&plugin¼1&pcode¼ten00110&language¼en.
Eurostat, 2019b. Municipal Waste by Waste Management Operations [WWW
Document]. v3.4.3-20180921-ca611-PROD_EUROBASE, 1.21.19. http://appsso.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset¼env_wasmun&lang¼en.
Eurostat, 2019c. Packaging Waste by Waste Operations and Waste Flow [WWW
Document], 1.21.19. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?
dataset¼env_waspac&lang¼en.
Finnveden, G., Ekvall, T., Arushanyan, Y., Bisaillon, M., Henriksson, G., ??stling, U.G.,
S??derman, M.L., Sahlin, J., Stenmarck, A., Sundberg, J., Sundqvist, J.O.,
Svenfelt, A., S??derholm, P., Bj??rklund, A.A., Eriksson, O., Forsf??lt, T.,
Guath, M., 2013. Policy instruments towards a sustainable waste management.
Sustainability 5, 882e895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5030882.
Gallup, 2009. Europeans' attitudes towards the issue of sustainable consumption
and production. Analytical Report. Flash EB Series #256. Flash Eurobarometer
256 e The Gallup Organisation.
Ghani, W.A.W.A.K., Rusli, I.F., Biak, D.R.A., Idris, A., 2013. An application of the theory
of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in source
separation of food waste. Waste Manag. 33, 1276e1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.WASMAN.2012.09.019.
Gharfalkara, M., Courta, R., Campbella, C., Alib, Z., Hillierac, G., 2015. Analysis of
waste hierarchy in the European waste directive 2008/98/EC. Waste Manag. 39,
305e313. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2015.02.007.
Gjerris, M., Gaiani, S., 2014. Food waste and consumer ethics. In: Encyclopedia of
Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 1e8. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_99-2.
Hargreaves, T., 2011. Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory
to pro-environmental behaviour change. J. Consum. Cult. 11, 79e99. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1469540510390500.
Henriksson, G., Åkesson, L., Ewert, S., 2010. Uncertainty regarding waste handling in
everyday life. Sustainability 2, 2799e2813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092799.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste: a Global Review of Solid Waste
Management.
IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. The Fifth Assessment
Report.
Jackson, T., 2009. Prosperity without Growth? the Transition to a Sustainable
Economy.
Joshi, Y., Rahman, Z., 2015. Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future
research directions. International Strategic Management Review 3, 128e143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISM.2015.04.001.
Le Que
re

, C., Andrew, R.M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Pongratz, J., Manning, A.C.,
Korsbakken, J.I., Peters, G.P., Canadell, J.G., Jackson, R.B., Boden, T.A., Tans, P.P.,
Andrews, O.D., Arora, V.K., Bakker, D.C.E., Barbero, L., Becker, M., Betts, R.A.,
Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L.P., Ciais, P., Cosca, C.E., Cross, J., Currie, K.,
Gasser, T., Harris, I., Hauck, J., Haverd, V., Houghton, R.A., Hunt, C.W., Hurtt, G.,
Ilyina, T., Jain, A.K., Kato, E., Kautz, M., Keeling, R.F., Klein Goldewijk, K.,
Ko€rtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefe vre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lima, I.,
Lombardozzi, D., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P.M.S., Munro, D.R.,
Nabel, J.E.M.S., Nakaoka, S., Nojiri, Y., Padín, X.A., Peregon, A., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D.,
Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Reimer, J., Ro € denbeck, C., Schwinger, J., Se
f e

rian, R.,
Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B.D., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I.T., van der
Werf, G.R., van Heuven, S., Viovy, N., Vuichard, N., Walker, A.P., Watson, A.J.,
Wiltshire, A.J., Zaehle, S., Zhu, D., 2017. Global carbon Budget 2017. Earth Syst.
Sci. Data Discuss. 1e79. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2017-123.
waste management in Ojo Local Government Area in Nigeria. Iran. J. Environ.
Health Sci. Eng. 6, 201e208.
Martin, P.Y., Turner, B.A., 1986. Grounded Theory and Organizational Research.
J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 22, 141e157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200207.
Mwanza, B.G., Mbohwa, C., Telukdarie, A., 2018. Levers influencing sustainable
waste recovery at households level: a review. Procedia Manufacturing 21,
615e622. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROMFG.2018.02.163.
Nielsen, A.S.E., Sand, H., Sørensen, P., Knutsson, M., Martinsson, P., Persson, E.,
Wollbrant, C., 2016. Nudging and Pro-environmental Behaviour. Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Oh, J., Lee, H., 2017. Exploring a zero food waste system for sustainable residential
buildings in urban areas. Environmental Engineering Research 23, 46e53.
https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2017.009.
Ordon ~ ez, I., Harder, R., Nikitas, A., Rahe, U., 2015. Waste sorting in apartments:
integrating the perspective of the user. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 669e679. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.100, 0959-6526 (ISSN).
Osuch, E., Osuch, A., Rybacki, P., Przybylak, A., Buchwald, T., 2016. Analysis OF the
factors influencing the decision about segregation BY people not segregating
the municipal waste with using the ahp method. Journal of Ecological Engi-
neering 17, 255e263. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/64706.
Paddock, J., 2015. Household consumption and environmental change: rethinking
the policy problem through narratives of food practice. J. Consum. Cult. 1e18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540515586869.
Pedersen, J.T., 2017. Kildessortering i etageejendomme. ANTHS - Business and
Change Anthropology, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peters, G.P., Minx, J.C., Weber, C.L., Edenhofer, O., 2011. Growth in emission transfers
via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108,
8903e8908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006388108.
Petersen, L.K., Christiansen, T.N.B., 2017. Kildesortering I Etageejendomme: Hush-
oldninger Og Affaldsansvarlige.
Pinto, R.A., de, F.R., Mondelli, G., Pinto, R.A., de, F.R., Mondelli, G., 2017. Potential de
recuperaç~
veis em um condomínio residencial de grande porte de
ao de recicla
Sa~o Caetano do Sul. Eng. Sanita
ria Ambient. 22, 647e656. https://doi.org/10.
1590/s1413-41522017146383.
Rada, E.C., Cioca, L., 2017. Optimizing the methodology of characterization of
municipal solid waste in EU under a circular economy perspective. Energy
Procedia 119, 72e85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.07.050.
Rada, E.C., Bresciani, C., Girelli, E., Ragazzi, M., Schiavon, M., Torretta, V., 2016.
Analysis and measures to improve waste management in schools. Sustainability
8, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090840.
Ragazzi, M., Fedrizzi, S., Rada, E.C., Ionescu, G., Ciudin, R., Cioca, L.I., 2017. Experi-
encing urban mining in an Italian municipality towards a circular economy
vision. Energy Procedia 119, 192e200. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.07.
068.
Rispo, A., Williams, I.D., Shaw, P.J., 2015. Source segregation and food waste pre-
vention activities in high-density households in a deprived urban area. Waste
Manag. 44, 15e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2015.04.010.
RK, 2013. Klar besked om affald, Rødovre kommune. Municipality of Rødovre,
Copenhagen Area.
Sanderson, P., 2015. EU Recycling Target Lowered to 65 % in New Circular Economic
Package. Resource Efficiency Business.
Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social
change. Environ. Plan. 42, 1273e1285. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., Watson, M., 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice. Everyday
Life and How it Changes. SAGE Publications Ltd., London.
Skene, K.R., 2017. Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: why the circular economy
cannot work, 14. Sustainability Science Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11625-017-0443-3.
Stoeva, K., Alriksson, S., 2017. Influence of Recycling Programmes on Waste Sepa-
ration Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.005.
Taylor, S., Todd, P., 1995. An integrated model of waste management behavior. En-
viron. Behav. 27, 603e630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595275001.
Teffer, P., 2017. Lower Waste Targets Still Not Low Enough for EU States. EUObserver.
Van Ewijk, S., Stegemann, J.A., 2016. Limitations of the waste hierarchy for achieving
absolute reductions in material throughput. J. Clean. Prod. 132, 122e128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2014.11.051.
Vassanadumrongdee, S., Kittipongvises, S., 2018. Factors influencing source sepa-
ration intention and willingness to pay for improving waste management in
Bangkok, Thailand. Sustainable Environment Research 28, 90e99. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.SERJ.2017.11.003.
Vito, 2011. Assessment of Feasibility of Setting Bio-Waste Recycling Targets. EU,
Paris.
Zhang, D., Huang, G., Yin, X., Gong, Q., 2015. Residents' waste separation behaviors
at the source: using SEM with the theory of planned behavior in guangzhou,
China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 9475e9491. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph120809475.