Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

How do social norms influence recycling behavior in a collectivistic

society? A case study from Turkey
Metehan Feridun Sorkun
_
Izmir University of Economics, Department of Business Administration, Sakarya cad., no: 156, Balçova, Izmir 35330, Turkey

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

Article history: This study investigates how social norms influence the household recycling behavior in collectivistic soci-
Received 4 May 2018 eties. High household participation rate is essential to accomplish the economic and environmental goals
Revised 15 July 2018 of recycling programs. To this end, the determinants of recycling behavior have long been studied, and
Accepted 16 September 2018
social norms have been indicated as the strong predictor of recycling behavior. However, there is a need
Available online 27 September 2018
for a more in-depth examination to understand how social norms function in activating recycling behav-
ior in different contexts. Hence, this study develops a model that disentangles the influence of social
Keywords:
norms (i.e. informational and normal influences) on recycling behavior in a collectivistic social context.
Recycling
Waste separation
Using data collected from the households of the case-study area (Seferihisar, Turkey), the research
Source-segregation hypotheses were tested via structural equation modelling. The findings confirm the influence of social
Municipality solid waste management norms on household recycling behavior, but this influence was found to occur not through internalization
Social norms process. The causal chain effect triggered by social norms (i.e. internalization process) maintains its influ-
Circular economy ence until the task knowledge necessary for recycling is obtained; however, this process does not end
with actual recycling behavior. Rather, the results show that the perceived convenience mediates the
influence of social norms on recycling behavior. In addition, the perceived convenience mediates the
effects of physical constraints on recycling behavior. As well as revealing valuable theoretical implica-
tions, these results also provide managerial guidance in devising social norms to increase the household
participation into recycling programs.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Successfully designed recycling programs can help in accomplish-

According to even the most optimistic estimation, the current
world municipal solid waste (MSW) exceeds 2 billion tonne per
annum (Wilson et al., 2015). In the following decade, not are only
urban populations expected to grow significantly, but also the
waste generated by each person is projected to more than double
(World Bank, 2012). These statistics highlight the necessity for
municipalities to put recycling programs on their priority agendas
to prevent uncontrolled waste disposal incurring serious health
and environmental risks (Azar and Azar, 2016; Marshall and
Farahbakhsh, 2013). In addition, poorly designed recycling pro-
grams increase the municipal operation costs such as waste collec-
tion and separation (Thi et al., 2015).
The management of MSW is an important public service, but
also has a great economic potential (Le Courtois, 2012); therefore,
it is proposed that the goal of MSW management should not be
limited to waste disposal alone, but should also aim to turn waste
into economic resources (Chalmin and Gaillochet, 2009).
E-mail address: metehan.sorkun@ieu.edu.tr
ing this goal. Instead of extracting virgin materials, the use of recy-
cled materials, such as glass, paper, aluminum, and plastics in
production reduces energy consumption (IPCC, 2013), and con-
serves scarce natural resources (Wilson et al., 2015). Moreover,
waste cooking oil (Moecke et al., 2016; Yano et al., 2015) and
organic waste (Naroznova et al., 2016) from households can pro-
duce renewable energy.
The recycling programs accomplish its goals only if households
actively participate (Dai et al., 2015; Stoeva and Alriksson, 2017). A
high proportion of kitchen waste in MSW due to a lack of source
separation decreases its heating value below the level needed for
efficient incineration process (Tai et al., 2011), which is a widely-
used method for producing energy from waste. In addition, a lack
of source separation decreases the market value of the recovered
materials due to contamination (World Bank, 2012). Therefore,
the waste separation by the household members ‘‘at source” is
encouraged to minimize the contamination of recyclables and
reduce the costs of waste separation activity (Meen-Chee and
Narayanan, 2006).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.026
0956-053X/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
360 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370
Even in the most developed countries, the household participa-
tion in recycling programs may remain far below the desired level.
For example, some recycling programs launched in New York
(Redling, 2018) and Phoenix (Miller, 2017) have recently failed
for this reason. It is therefore critical to identify the causes of this
undesirable situation to accomplish the goals of recycling pro-
grams. To this end, the determinants of the recycling behavior have
long been studied (Hornik et al., 1995; Oskamp et al., 1991), and
considering recent publications (Arı and Yılmaz, 2016;
Botetzagias et al., 2015; Oztekin et al., 2017; Wan et al., 2014),
there is still intensive ongoing research on this topic. All these
and future research endeavors are invaluable because examining
recycling behavior in different types of neighborhood ‘‘permits bet-
ter understanding of recycling as a function of both individual and
contextual variables.” (Guerin et al., 2001; p.195).
The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and norm activa-
tion theory (Schwartz, 1977) are the most commonly used theoret-
ical approaches to identify the determinants of recycling behavior
(Klöckner, 2013); however, there is a need for more comprehensive
approaches to better understand recycling decisions which are
characterized by many inextricable factors (Davies et al., 2002).
Especially, the need to reveal the role of social norms is empha-
sized (Thomas and Sharp, 2013), because these play a significant
role in individual behavior, especially in collectivistic cultures
(Morren and Grinstein, 2016); others’ opinions are more likely to
influence the individual behaviors in these societies. This influence
may occur in two different forms: ‘‘informational”, and ‘‘norma-
tive” (Toelch and Dolan, 2015).
Informational influence shapes the behavior through internal-
ization process. Individuals believe that their behavior in a specific
circumstance should meet with peers’ approval; hence, they adopt
social norms as personal norms. Altruistic behavior models may be
useful to examine the informational influence of social norms on
recycling behavior; however, these models may fail to capture
the normative influence of social norms because individuals may
also conform to social norms for their own sake without internal-
izing the norms. To this end, this research disentangles the infor-
mational and normative influences of social norms on recycling
behavior. On the theoretical side, this study offers a more detailed
examination on the influence of social norms on recycling behav-
ior, while on the practical side, the understanding of how social
norms influence recycling behavior enables policy-makers to opti-
mize the recycling program design in collectivistic social contexts.
Fig. 1. Theory of planned behavior. Source: Ajzen (1991)
2. Theoretical background
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) has been widely
used to explain wide range of human behaviors (Ajzen, 2011),
including altruistic behaviors such as pro-environmental (De
Leeuw et al., 2015) and recycling behavior (Liao et al., 2018; Park
and Ha, 2014). Behavioral intention has a central role in the frame-
work of TPB. It has been shown as the main determinant of actual
behavior, and its three determinants are proposed as (Ajzen, 1991,
p. 179): (i) attitudes towards the behavior (the favorable or unfa-
vorable evaluation of performing the behavior), (ii) subjective
norms (the perceived social pressure), and (iii) the perceived
behavioral control (the perceived ease or difficulty of performing
the behavior). According to TPB, the perceived behavioral control
has also direct effect on actual behavior. Below, Fig. 1 shows the
framework of TPB.
One common criticism of TPB is that the determinants of behav-
ior rely heavily on rational reasoning; however, other determi-
nants such as unconscious influences and emotions also have an
effect on behavior (Sniehotta et al., 2014). Recycling behavior is
considered as altruistic behavior that is not merely the result of a
rational reasoning (Culiberg, 2014). In this regard, Norm Activation
Theory (NAT; Schwartz, 1977) is considered to explain recycling
behavior more comprehensively (Davies et al., 2002). Social norms,
‘‘i.e. what most people typically do or approve of” (Robinson, 2015,
p. 397), start the causal chain effect on recycling behavior in this
model. However, social norms are too general to shape behavior;
therefore, they should be first adopted as personal norms. Subse-
quently, in order to observe behavior, individuals should be aware
of the consequences of the recycling act and ascribe responsibility
to themselves for these consequences. Below, Fig. 2 shows
Schwartz’s social–psychological model of altruistic behavior.
Recent research on recycling behavior have benefited from both
TPB and NAT. Researchers build models by combining the constructs
of TPB and NAM. For example, the comprehensive model of Park and
Ha (2014) combine the constructs of TPB and NAM, and investigate
their effects on recycling intentions. Likewise, Wan et al. (2014)
integrate TBP and NAM to examine the role of perceived policy effec-
tiveness on recycling behavior. Many new variables have also been
introduced and integrated into the frameworks of TPB and NAM,
including ability, efficacy (Harland et al., 2007), convenience, famil-
iarity (Sidique et al., 2010), past behavior (Liao et al., 2018), the per-
ceived recycling policy effectiveness (Wan et al., 2014), task
 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370
Fig. 2. The Schwartz model of altruistic behavior. Source: Davies et al. (2002)
knowledge, and cost-benefit trade-off (Davies et al., 2002). The rel-
evance of demographic and other related variables (e.g. gender, age,
education, income, household size, and the distance to recycling
bins) have also been investigated (Botetzagias et al., 2015; Sidique
et al., 2010; Padilla and Trujillo, 2018).
3. Research model
In order to disentangle the influence of social norms on recy-
cling behavior, this study’s research model was designed to test
separately the informational and normative influences of social
norms on recycling behavior. Schwartz’s norm activation model
(NAM; Schwartz, 1977), considered to be effective in predicting
altruistic behaviors (Davies et al., 2002), was used to examine
the informational influence of social norms on recycling behavior.
However, this model was modified following the integrative
approach (Davies et al., 2002), on the ground that the inclusion
of relevant variables could increase the sufficiency of recycling
behavior models. Thus, the variables ‘‘efficacy” (Harland et al.,
2007) and ‘‘task knowledge” (Davies et al., 2002) were integrated
into Schwartz’s model, while the variable ‘‘ascription of responsi-
bility” was excluded due to the lack of clarity on its role in NAM
model (Park and Ha, 2014).
Social norms trigger the causal chain effect in Schwartz’s altru-
istic behavior model (Fig. 2). These represent the code of conduct
which people surrounding an individual (family and friends) con-
sider appropriate. If social norms are in favor of recycling, it
increases the likelihood that an individual will maintain that recy-
cling is an appropriate behavior. Since the influence of social norms
on personal norms depicted in the Schwartz’s model occurs
through the internalization process, rather than being dictated,
individuals adopting the recycling behavior as personal norm are
expected to have higher levels of information and awareness
regarding its positive economic and environmental consequences.
Thus, individuals with a higher level of information on the conse-
quences of recycling activity are more likely to acknowledge the
importance of their individual recycling activity for the goals of
recycling programs. When individuals hold that their recycling
behavior has efficacy (Harland et al., 2007), i.e. contributes to econ-
omy and environment, they are prompted to acquire the task
knowledge necessary for performing recycling behavior (e.g. what
to recycle, how to sort, where to bring the recyclables). The posses-
sion of such task knowledge indicates a strong intention to perform
recycling behavior. Based on the above arguments, the first five
hypothesis were formulated as follows:
Hypothesis 1. Social norms affect the individual’s personal norms on
recycling.
Hypothesis 2. The individual’s personal norms on recycling affect his/
her awareness on the consequences of recycling.
Hypothesis 3. The awareness on the consequences of recycling posi-
tively affects the individual’s view on the efficacy of his/her recycling.
Hypothesis 4. The individual’s view on the efficacy of his/her recy-
cling positively affects his/her task knowledge.
361
Hypothesis 5. The individual’s task knowledge on recycling activity
positively affects his/her actual recycling behavior.
According to Meen-Che and Narayanan (2006), recycling behav-
ior has benefits and costs, from the individual’s perspective. While
its main benefit is social approval, in addition to a cleaner living
environment (Fornara et al., 2011), the inconvenience (e.g. the
level of effort) experienced during recycling activity is the main
cost (Meen-Che and Narayanan, 2006). Based on cost/benefit anal-
ysis, if the recycling is a social norm, an individual is willing to per-
form the recycling behavior in order to gain social approval.
However, the level of inconvenience perceived by an individual
should not outweigh his/her utility of conforming to social norms.
Therefore, the minimum level of convenience has to be provided to
ensure recycling behavior (Bernstad, 2014; Boonrod et al., 2015;
Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013).
Theory of Planned Behavior captures the effect of convenience
on recycling behavior with the construct of ‘‘perceived behavioral
control”. According to Valle et al. (2005), this construct reflects
two dimensions: the perceived ability of individual to perform
recycling behavior and external conditions that are sufficient to
promote the adoption of recycling behavior. Regarding the first
dimension, convenience depends on the individual’s perceptions
on recycling activity, including perceptions on its complexity,
labor-intensity, and time-consumption. This dimension, the per-
ceived convenience, captures the psychological aspect of conve-
nience rather than its physical aspect. Therefore, as Park and Ha
(2014) argue, others’ opinions of recycling activity affect an indi-
vidual’s perception of the convenience of recycling activity. If social
norms are in favor, the individual perceives greater convenience.
As many studies report (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013), the per-
ceived convenience is a strong predictor of recycling behavior.
Hence, the following two hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 6. Social norms in favor of recycling behavior influences
the perceived convenience positively.
Hypothesis 7. The perceived convenience affects the actual recycling
behavior positively.
The second dimension of the ‘‘perceived behavioral control”
reported by Valle et al. (2005) captures the physical aspect of con-
venience. Concordantly, many studies (Sidique et al., 2010;
Tadesse, 2009) find the greater distance to recycling bins, the lower
the level of recycling behavior. Likewise, lack of space for recycling
activities discourages recycling behavior (Afroz et al., 2010;
Meen-Che and Narayanan, 2006). These two physical constraints
(i.e. distance and space) also affect the perceived convenience.
Greater distances to recycling bins and the lack of space for
recycling activity lead to the perception of the act of recycling as
being more complex, labor-intensive, and time-consuming.
Accordingly, the following four hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 8. The distance to recycling bins negatively affects the
perceived convenience.
Hypothesis 9. The distance to recycling bins negatively affects the
actual recycling behavior.
362 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370
Hypothesis 10. The space available for recycling activity positively
affects the perceived convenience.
Hypothesis 11. The space available for recycling activity positively
affects the actual recycling behavior.
The research model was designed to indirectly test both infor-
mational and normative influences of social norms on recycling
behavior. While the first five hypotheses (Hypotheses 1–5) were
developed to test the informational influence of social norms on
recycling behavior, the next six hypotheses (Hypotheses 6–11)
were developed to test the normative influence of social norms
on recycling behavior. Nonetheless, there may exist other factors
through which social norms might affect recycling behavior such
as the avoidance of punishment, fear (Huffman et al., 2014), and
other cultural factors, such as recycling activity being regarded as
unmanly (Brough et al., 2016). To capture the magnitude of such
effects, the following hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 12. Social norms influence actual recycling behavior.
Since the waste separation phase of the recycling activity is
mainly housework, the larger the household, the greater the social
influence on an individual. Larger household size implies a larger
house, hence a larger space for recycling activity. Thus, the follow-
ing two hypothesis were formulated:
Hypothesis 13. Household size positively affects the influence of
social norms.
Fig. 3. Research model.
Hypothesis 14. Household size and the available space for recycling
activity correlate positively.
Below, Fig. 3 shows the research model of this study.
4. Methodology
The variance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) was
employed to test the research hypotheses. SEM consists of mea-
surement models and a structural model (Kline, 2015). In measure-
ment models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to
operationalize latent variables. The variables – social norms, per-
sonal norms, awareness of consequences, efficacy, task knowledge,
perceived convenience, and recycling behavior – were designed as
latent variables in the research model. These latent variables were
measured with indicator variables that were survey items formu-
lated using the validated scales of previous studies (see Table 2).
The other three variables – the distance to recycling bins, the avail-
able space for recycling, and household size – were integrated into
the model as observed variables because of their objectivity. Note
that the house size was used to construct a proxy for the available
space for recycling.
The hypothesized relationships in the structural model (Fig. 3)
were tested with maximum likelihood estimation using AMOS
software. Since the research model comprises many serial relation-
ships, the mediation analyses were also performed to uncover indi-
rect effects in the model. The mediation analysis aims to reveal
mediating variables (M) through which the relationship between
predictor variable (X) and outcome variable (Y) is established.
 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370 363

According to the causal steps approach (Baron and Kenny, 1986), M Table 1
is said to fully mediate the relationship between X and Y when the Demographic composition of sample.

removal of M eliminates the effect of X on Y. In partial mediation, N = 235

the effect of X on Y persists despite the removal of M, however, the Gender
size effect of X on Y decreases significantly (Preacher and Hayes, Male 34.2%
Female 65.8%
2004). The descriptions and illustrations of direct, indirect, and Marital status
total effects are provided in Appendix A. Married 56.7%
This study tested the indirect effects in the model using the Single 43.3%
bootstrapping approach, which has been shown to have greater Age
16–25 17.9%
validity and power than other commonly used methods for medi-
26–35 28.1%
ation analysis (Hayes, 2009) such as causal steps approach (Baron 36–45 20.0%
and Kenny, 1986) and Sobel test (Sobel, 1986). Bootstrapping is a 46–55 14.9%
non-parametric method that makes no assumptions about the 56–65 13.6%
sampling distribution of mediation effects. In addition, it can iden- 66+ 5.5%
Education
tify indirect effects without requiring the significant effect of pre- Primary education 15.9%
dictor variable on the outcome variable. The bootstrapping High school diploma 36.9%
technique resamples the sample a very large number of times in Bachelor’s degree 41.6%
order to estimate the indirect effect for each resample. The distri- Graduate degree 5.6%
Occupation
bution of these estimates gives the 95% confidence interval that
Employed 48.1%
shows whether the indirect effect is significantly different from Retired 16.6%
zero (Hayes, 2009). Housewife 17.9%
Using the bootstrapping approach, this study tested the indirect Student 11.9%
effect of social norms on recycling behavior through the multiple Unemployed 5.5%
Monthly household income
mediating effects of awareness of consequences, efficacy, and task Min. Wage* - 3000 TL 30.5%
knowledge. Moreover, the mediation of perceived convenience 3001–5000 TL 34.3%
between social norms and recycling behavior was also tested. 5001–7000 TL 24.5%
The mediating effect of perceived convenience was further tested 7001–9000 TL 8.6%
9001 TL + 2.1%
between the available space for recycling and recycling behavior,
Household size (HHS)
and between the distance to recycling bins and recycling behavior. 1 person 8.9%
In these tests, the SPSS tool ‘‘PROCESS” (Hayes, 2017) was used 2 persons 20.9%
with 5000 bootstrap resamples. 3 persons 29.8%
4 persons 31.5%
5 persons 7.2%
6 persons 1.7%
4.1. Data collection and sample House size (HS)
<50 m squares 1.7%
This study was conducted in Seferihisar district, located in the 50–75 m squares 8.6%
_
province of Turkey’s third most populated city, Izmir. Previous 76–100 m squares 26.5%
101–125 m squares 34.6%
studies (Ertürk, 2008; Pellegrini and Scandura, 2006) define Turk- 126–150 m squares 21.8%
ish culture as collectivistic, exerting a great social influence on >150 m squares 6.8%
each individual. Likewise, people’s opinions are important in Sefer- Distance to recycling bins (DB)
ihisar, which has a relatively small population (around 40.000). In 0–100 m 16.2%
101–200 m 12.7%
Turkey, the municipalities are legally responsible for providing
201–300 m 8.8%
recycling services (Budak and Oguz, 2008) but they can contract 301–400 m 18.9%
with private recycling companies to operate these services. In 401–500 m 11.0%
Seferihisar, the municipality carries out the drop-off recycling pro- >500 m 32.5%
gram in which the recycling bins are located at designated spaces, *
Minimum wage is equivalent to 1603 TL (Turkish
where households deposit their recyclables after separating them Liras). *As the dates of data collection, $1 was approx-
at home. Then, the private recycling company contracted by Sefer- imately equivalent to 3.5 TL (Turkish Liras).
ihisar Municipality collects these recyclables from drop-off points
and delivers them to the recycling treatment plants. between 75 and 150 m squares, and the majority of households
The data collection was made during the project conducted consist of either 2, 3 or 4 persons. One third of the participants
with Seferihisar Municipality, which aimed to identify the barriers need to travel more than 500 m to the recycling bins.
to household recycling behavior in Seferihisar. The survey method
was used to collect data from the household members actively 4.2. Questionnaire design
engaging into recycling activities at home. Since local people in
Seferihisar visit the town center for their needs, the questionnaire The relatively low number of questions in the questionnaire
forms were distributed at public places in the town center to make was an attempt to minimize unengaged responses. The question-
the sampling as random as possible. Space was provided for partic- naire was prepared in the native language of participants to ensure
ipants to fill out the questionnaire. In total, 253 questionnaire comprehension. In order to eliminate any concern on the question-
forms were collected. After the unengaged responses were naire item content and face validity, the questionnaire was pre-
excluded, the final sample size decreased to 235 responses. Table 1 tested on a group of residents. After some wording refinements
shows the demographic composition of the sample. were made based on the feedback, the questionnaire was finalized
Table 1 indicates that the participants are largely women, in for the actual conduct of survey. The first part of the questionnaire
employment, under 45 years-old, and have a modest household included the demographic questions shown in Table 1. Addition-
income. The majority of participants have graduated from high ally, three observable variables (household size, distance to recy-
school (12 years) or university (16 years). Most houses are cling bins, and house size) were measured with one survey item
364 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370

Table 2
The operationalization of scale items.

Latent variables Item Scale item Sources of scale items

Social norms SN1 My family reacts positively when I recycle household materials Park and Ha (2014)
SN2 .My friends react positively when I recycle household materials Ramayah et al. (2012)
Sidique et al. (2010)
Tonglet et al. (2004)Valle et al. (2004)
*
Personal norms PN1 Recycling is the concern of municipality, not mine Davies et al. (2002)Valle et al. (2004)
PN2 I feel good about myself when I recycle
PN3 Households who do not sort their waste should be fined
*
Awareness of AC1 Household waste does not harm environment Ramayah et al. (2012)
consequences AC2 Recycling helps meet energy needs Tonglet et al. (2004)Valle et al. (2004)
AC3 Recycling contributes to the economy Wan et al. (2014)
Efficacy EF1 I believe that my recycling activities will help reduce pollution Harland et al. (2007)
EF2 I believe that my recycling activities will help meet energy needs
EF3 I believe that my recycling activities will contribute to the economy
Task knowledge TK1 I know how to recycle my household waste Bezzina and Dimech (2011)Davies et al. (2002)
TK2 I know where to take my household waste for recycling Sidique et al. (2010)
*
Perceived convenience PC1 For me, household recycling is a difficult task Bezzina and Dimech (2011)
*
PC2 Recycling is too complicated Sidique et al. (2010)
*
PC3 I do not have enough time to sort the materials for recycling Tonglet et al. (2004)
Recycling behavior RB1 I recycle my used cooking oil at collection points Bezzina and Dimech (2011)Valle et al. (2004)
RB2 I separate and dispose of all recyclable materials
a
Reversed scale.

in the first part. The second part consisted of items (Table 2) that
were designed as a five-point Likert scale with the end points
‘‘strongly agree” and ‘‘strongly disagree”. The self-report responses
of participants were used to measure the variables. Many of the
questionnaire items were adopted from the validated scales of pre-
vious studies in the recycling literature (Table 2), and a few were
modified to support the contextual relevance. For example, Seferi-
hisar Municipality has an ongoing campaign to persuade residents
to recycle their used cooking oil. Hence, one item in the question-
naire asked participants the degree to which they recycle their
used cooking oil. This item was used to measure the recycling
behavior. Table 2 shows the operationalization of scale items after
back-translation, and reports the studies whose scale items were
used in the formulation of survey items.
4.3. Data analysis
The number of missing values for each variable was found to be
low (maximum 3%); thus, these were not treated. The normality of
observed variables was checked, since the maximum likelihood
estimation assumes multivariate normal distribution for the pre-
cise parameter estimations, The skewness and kurtosis values of
variables were generally between
1. While a few variables with

1.5 skewness and kurtosis values showed moderate non-
normality, all fell between
2, which is acceptable (Gravetter
and Wallnau, 2016). In addition, the variable inflation factor scores
were found below 10, indicating no serious multicollinearity prob-
lem (Aiken et al., 1991). The correlation matrix of observed vari-
ables is provided in Appendix B.
Common method bias was checked, because the measurements
were made using the single instrument (survey) based on the self-
reports of participants (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). A factor anal-
ysis on all survey items yielded no single factor that accounted for
more than 50% variance (Harman, 1976). In addition, a common
method bias was checked by adding a common latent factor to
the model, which predicted all observed variables in the research
model. This caused only negligible changes in the standardized
regression weights; therefore, the threat of common method bias
was rejected (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
The sample size of this research (n = 235), greater than the rule-
of-thumb threshold value 200, met the minimum sample size
requirement in SEM models (Iacobucci, 2010). The total number
of distinct parameters to be estimated in the research model was
61. Table 3 reports the results of CFA, showing that most indicator
variables significantly load on its latent variables and their factor
loadings are sufficient. AC1 was the only indicator variable that
did not load on its latent variable significantly; in addition, its stan-
dardized loading (.073) was very low. Thus, AC1 was dropped from
model. Likewise, the factor loadings of PN1 and PN3 were found
very low, which caused the exclusion of the construct ‘‘personal
norms” from model due to its validity problems, causing the first
two hypotheses in research model (Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis
2) to be revised. These two hypotheses were replaced with
‘‘Hypothesis 0” in the revised final structural model (Fig. 4), which
tests the direct effect of social norms on the awareness of
consequences.
The model’s validity was checked with the following four anal-
yses: (i) scale reliability, (ii) convergent validity, (iii) discriminant
validity, and (iv) construct validity. The Cronbach Alpha scores of
social norms (a = .92), efficacy (a = .96), task knowledge (a = .69),
perceived convenience (a = .92), recycling behavior (a = .78) are
all either above or close to the cut-off value .7 (Nunnally, 1978).
Furthermore, the composite reliability scores of all constructs are
higher than .7 (Table 3), showing that they are internally consis-
tent. However, the Cronbach Alpha scores of personal norms
(a = .41) and awareness of consequences (a = .52) were found
low. After dropping the item AC1, the Cronbach alpha and compos-
ite reliability scores of awareness of consequences increased signif-
icantly (a = .957; CR = .956), thus the construct ‘‘awareness of
consequences” was retained in model. Nonetheless, personal
norms had to be removed from the model (as mentioned), because
no improvement in its reliability and validity could be made by
dropping any item from the scale of personal norms.
Convergent validity was tested for the remaining constructs.
Table 3 shows that the average variance extracted (AVE) by each
construct is greater than .5, and the composite reliability (CR) of
each construct is greater than .7. Moreover, the standardized factor
loadings of all items are higher than .5, and each item loads on its
construct significantly. All these ensure that the criteria for conver-
gent validity are met (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant
validity was also tested using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. It
requires that the square root of AVE by each construct should be
larger than its correlation with any other construct in the model.
The correlation matrix of constructs (Appendix B) shows that each
construct meets the Fornell-Larcker criterion for discriminant
validity.
 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370 365

Table 3
The results of CFA.

Construct Item Factor loading Estimate Standard error P-value

Social norms SN1 .920 1.000 Reference item
a ***
AVE = .845 SN2 .919 1.026 .056
b
CR = .919
Personal norms PN1 .226 1.000 Reference item
***
AVE = .264 PN2 .806 3.175 1.006
***
CR = .448 PN3 .306 1.374 .534
Awareness of consequences AC1 .073 .111 .102 .275
AVEc = .613 AC2 .968 1.000 Reference item
CRc = .772 AC3 .947 .990 .033 ***

Efficacy EF1 .879 1.000 Reference item

***
AVE = .884 EF2 .979 1.109 .044
***
CR = .958 EF3 .960 1.100 .045
Task knowledge TK1 .892 1.000 Reference item
***
AVE = .573 TK2 .593 .677 .079
CR = .721
Perceived convenience PC1 .958 1.000 Reference item
***
AVE = .805 PC2 .970 1.000 .033
***
CR = .746 PC3 .746 .794 .050
***
Recycling behavior RB1 .733 .874 .158
AVE = .653 RB2 .877 1.000 Reference item
CR = .877
***
Represents that the estimate is significant at p < 0.01 level.
a
Average variance explained.
b
Composite reliability.
c
After AC1 was dropped from model, AVE = .916 and CR = .956.

Fig. 4. The tested structural model.

Table 4
Last, the construct validity was tested to check how well the The overall model fit.
model fits with data. For this purpose, the following model fit
indexes were used: the Relative Chi-square (v2/df), Tucker Fit index Values Cited benchmark

Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Parsimony Ratio v /df
2
1.997 <2.00, (Byrne, 2001)
TLI .950 >0.90, (Hoe, 2008)
(PRATIO), and Root Mean Square Error Approximation
CFI .964 >0.95, (Hu and Bentler, 1999)
(RMSEA). Table 4 shows that the minimum accepted cut-off PRATIO .712 >0.60, (Byrne, 2001)
threshold values are all satisfied, indicating a good model fit RMSEA .065 <0.08, (Hoe, 2008)
with data. *
v2 = 217.660; df = 109; p-value = .000.
366 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370

5. Results convenience (H10), its effect on recycling behavior is not significant

5.1. The hypotheses testing results
While Fig. 4 illustrates the tested structural model, Table 5
reports the results of the hypothesized direct effects between
research constructs. As shown in Table 5, all hypotheses are sup-
ported except from H5 and H11.
The results reveal the significant positive influence of social
norms on awareness of consequences (H0), perceived convenience
(H6) and, recycling behavior (H12). In addition, the results show
that the awareness of consequences positively affects efficacy
(H3) which in turn positively affects task knowledge (H4). However,
the hypothesized positive effect of task knowledge on recycling
behavior could not be verified (H5), leaving a doubt over whether
the influence of social norms on recycling behavior occurs via
internalization process. In contrast, the perceived convenience,
predicted by social norms (H6), has a positive effect on recycling
behavior (H7), providing evidence for normative social influence
on recycling behavior. Furthermore, the distance to recycling bins
has negative effects on both perceived convenience (H8) and recy-
cling behavior (H9). Whereas the findings show that the house size
(available space for recycling) positively affects the perceived
(H11). Last, the results verify that the household size increases the
influence of social norms (H13), and correlates positively with
house size (H14).
25.9% of the variance in recycling behavior is explained by
social norms, perceived convenience, task knowledge, and house
size. The explained variance in recycling behavior increases to
32% as the demographic variables – age (estimate = .094 standard
error = .053, p = .075), education (estimate = .421, standard
error = .111, p < .001), income (estimate = -.005, standard
error = .081, p = .954) – are included into the model as the determi-
nants of recycling behavior. The percentages of explained variance
in social norms, awareness of consequences, efficacy, task knowl-
edge, and perceived convenience are respectively 4.2%, 35.6%,
56.3%, 66.8%, and 17.2%.
5.2. The results of mediation analyses
Table 6 shows the mediation analyses performed to uncover the
indirect effects in the model. The indirect influence of social norms
on recycling behavior via internalization process (where awareness
of consequences, efficacy, and task knowledge were designed as
mediators) was not tested because the effect of task knowledge

Table 5
Hypothesis testing results.

Hypothesis Path Path coefficient Estimate (Std. Error) p-Value Result

H0 SN ? AC .597 .618 (.064) p < .001 Supported
H3 AC ? EF .750 .746 (.055) p < .001 Supported
H4 EF ? TK .817 .875 (.063) p < .001 Supported
H5 TK ? RB .050 .054 (.092) p > .05 Not supported
H6 SN ? PC .300 .376 (.084) p < .001 Supported
H7 PC ? RB .239 .227 (.076) p < .01 Supported
H8 DB ? PC .136 .437 (.109) p < .001 Supported
H9 DB ? RB .132 .085 (.043) p < .05 Supported
H10 HS ? PC .235 .235 (.063) p < .001 Supported
H11 HS ? RB .002 .002 (.071) p > .05 Not supported
H12 SN ? RB .367 .437 (.109) p < .001 Supported
H13 HHS ? SN .204 .180 (.059) p < .01 Supported
H14 HS () HHS .284 .412 (.099) p < .001 Supported

Table 6
The results of mediation analyses testing.

Path: SN ? AC ? EF ? TK Effect SE p-Value LLCI ULCI

Total effect SN ? TK .313 .063 p < .001 .189 .437
Direct effect SN ? TK accounting for the effects of AC and EF .054 .058 p > .05 .060 .168
Indirect effect* SN ? AC ? EF ? TK .284 .045 — .194 .371
Path: SN ? PC ? RB Effect SE p-Value LLCI ULCI
covariates: DB, HS
Total effect SN ? RB .398 .076 p < .001 .248 .547
Direct effect SN ? RB accounting for the effect of PC .314 .076 p < .001 .165 .464
Indirect effect* SN ? PC ? RB .083 .035 — .029 .163
Path: DB ? PC ? RB Effect SE p-Value LLCI ULCI
covariates: SN, HS
Total effect DB ? RB .222 .088 p < .05 .396 .049
Direct effect DB ? RB accounting for the effect of PC .167 .086 p < .05 .336 .002
Indirect effect* DB ? PC ? RB .056 .025 — .110 .010
Path: HS ? PC ? RB Effect SE p-Value LLCI ULCI
covariates: SN, DB
Total effect HS ? RB .085 .132 p > .05 .174 .345
Direct effect HS ? RB accounting for the effect of PC .048 .131 p > .05 .305 .210
Indirect effect* HS ? PC ? RB .133 .048 — .053 .238
*
For indirect effects, The values of SE (Standard Error), LLCI (Lower Level of Confidence Interval), ULCI (Upper Level of Confidence Interval) were computed using
bootstrapping.
 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370
on recycling behavior (H5) was not found significant. In order to
reveal where the casual chain was broken, the recycling behavior
was excluded from the serial mediation analysis. After this change,
the awareness of consequences and efficacy were found to mediate
the relationship between social norms and task knowledge [indi-
rect effect: .284 (95%CI: .194–.371)].
The perceived convenience was found as the mediating variable
in the relationship between social norms and recycling behavior
[indirect effect: .083 (95%CI: .029–.163)]. In addition, the perceived
convenience was found to mediate the relationships between the
distance to recycling bins and recycling behavior [indirect effect:
.056 (95%CI: .110 – .010)], and between house size (available
space for recycling) and recycling behavior [indirect effect: .133
(95%CI: .053–.238)]. That is, the shorter distance to recycling bins
and the larger available space for recycling increase the perceived
convenience of the recycling act, which in turn stimulates recycling
behavior.
6. Discussion
Many of this study’s findings are in parallel to the existing body
of knowledge. First, this study validates the importance of conve-
nience for the performance of recycling behavior, as emphasized
by recent review papers (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013; Rousta
et al., 2017; Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). This study also supports
the finding of previous research (Rousta et al., 2015; Zhang et al.,
2016) regarding the negative effect on recycling behavior caused
by the distance to recycling bins. Furthermore, this study confirms
that social norms significantly influence recycling behavior
(Miliute-Plepiene et al., 2016; Sidique et al., 2010), but additionally
shows that social norms have also an indirect effect on recycling
behavior through convenience. This result reveals that social
norms play a key role in determining how convenient individuals
find the act of recycling. Last, as indicated by previous papers
(Bell et al., 2017; Meen-Chee and Narayanan, 2006), this study
shows that the education level is another key predictor of recycling
behavior.
The results of this study do not support a number of findings in
previous research. In contrast to other studies (Park and Ha, 2014;
Wan et al., 2014), this study could not verify that moral norms acti-
vate recycling behavior; i.e. it was not able to provide evidence of
the influence of social norms on recycling behavior through the
internalization process. Also, some studies (Bernstad, 2014;
Timlett and Williams, 2009) demonstrate that the lack of storage
space available has a direct negative effect on recycling behavior.
While this study could not find such direct effect; it found the indi-
rect effect of storage space through perceived convenience. Finally,
regarding the demographic variables, some studies show that age
(Pakpour et al., 2014; Sidique et al., 2010) and income (Bell et al.,
2017; Seacat and Boileau, 2018) are predictors of recycling behav-
ior; however, this study found no significant effect for these on
recycling behavior.
6.1. Theoretical implications
The case findings show that the Schwartz’s altruistic behavior
model is indeed fairly effective for depicting the internalization
process. The findings confirm that social norms lead individuals
to possess the task knowledge necessary for the act of recycling,
with the serial mediations of the awareness of consequences and
efficacy. Nevertheless, this serial relationship does not end with
recycling behavior. It is true that altruistic behavior is performed
with no expectations in return, but Schwartz’s model potentially
overlooks the municipalities’ legal responsibility for recycling in
367
many countries (e.g. Turkey). Municipalities have a duty to
facilitate recycling activity for citizens, especially by delivering
solutions to the logistics problems (e.g. distance to recycling bins
and storage space). Were this not the case, people would feel much
less guilt in avoiding recycling behavior. This finding supports the
‘‘identity” argument of Thomas and Sharp (2013), holding that
individuals themselves need to assume full responsibility for the
act of recycling. If individuals perceive that the municipality fails
to fulfill its public responsibilities in regard to facilitating recycling,
a lack of perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991) may cause
individuals to give up recycling.
Recycling has at least non-financial benefits and costs for
individuals. According to the economic-based approach, an
individual recycles only if costs involved do not outweigh ben-
efits (Meen-Chee and Narayanan, 2006). Recycling activity
demands the mental and physical effort of individuals during
waste separation and delivery to the drop-off points. Time and
space can be listed as other major opportunity costs associated
with recycling behavior (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013). The
results of this study show that, although people recycle without
expecting any financial outcome, they also seek for convenience.
As shown in this case study, concern for the environment
may often be undermined by prior economic and social con-
cerns in personal lives. It is unfair to expect people to perform
recycling behavior without sufficient logistics service (Valle
et al., 2004). This finding suggests that the internalization pro-
cess (informational social influence on recycling behavior) might
function in developing countries only if sufficient logistics ser-
vice is provided.
6.2. Policy implications
The results highlight some potential policy instruments that
might increase household recycling. It is argued that the influence
of social norms on recycling behavior is stronger in small commu-
nities (Xevgenos et al., 2015) without a well-developed recycling
scheme (Miliute-Plepiene et al., 2016). This argument is supported
by the case-study area under examination (Seferihisar), which
exemplifies both features. Therefore, in these types of contexts,
policies should aim at increasing the visibility of recycling activity,
for example, by designing the locations of collection points at
which social contact is high likely (Rousta et al., 2017), and using
visual prompts to convey the message that recycling is socially
approved (Shearer et al., 2017). In this way, recycling can be
encouraged via social influence.
Given the finding that the distance to recycling bins negatively
affects recycling behavior, the public managers ought to apply
property-close waste collection systems. For example, the door-
stepping waste collection system, in which involves no travelling
distance, seems an ideal system (Dai et al., 2015). However, if its
applicability is infeasible due to cost, increasing the number of
recyclable collection points in drop-off systems will ensure a
greater accessibility (Zhang et al., 2016). At this point, recycling
bins should be closer than mixed waste bins to prevent recycling
becoming inconvenient (Briguglio, 2016). Also, the single-stream
recycling programs (Bell et al., 2017) might be considered as
another policy to make the recycling more convenient, because
there is no need to sort recyclables into subcategories (e.g. plastics,
papers, and glass) in these programs, which saves both space and
effort.
This study finds that the influence of social norms on recycling
behavior occurs with the mediation of perceived convenience. This
finding offers useful insights for policy-makers, highlighting the
need to devise social norms in masking the physical difficulties
368 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370

of recycling activity. Especially in less developed countries, it may
not be easy to overcome the physical constraints (e.g. a lack of
space, distance). However, since the perception of convenience
may differ among individuals sharing the same physical conditions
(Valle et al., 2004), ‘‘promoting the significance of recycling and
portraying recycling as a socially desirable behavior” (Wan et al.,
2014, p.148) can lessen the negative impact of these constraints.
Hence, harnessing social influence can decrease the perceived
inconvenience of the recycling act resulting from physical con-
straints, which is highly important for stimulating recycling behav-
ior in collectivistic societies (Ekere et al., 2009).
6.3. Demographic variables
The effects of demographic variables on recycling behavior
found in this study provide an insight on how to increase house-
hold participation in recycling programs. Similar to previous
papers (Bell et al., 2017; Meyer, 2015), this study finds that edu-
cation is the strong predictor of recycling behavior, corroborating
the importance of higher education institutions (Oztekin et al.,
2017) in equipping young generations with sufficient environ-
mental education and awareness. This may be essential for the
functioning of Schwartz’s altruistic behavioral model in future,
i.e. activating social influence on recycling behavior via internal-
ization process.
Age and income might be expected to correlate with education;
however, this study could not identify their effects on recycling
behavior. This result might be attributed to the fact that the previ-
ous generations, especially those living in rural Turkey, may have
achieved substantial incomes through a long business career, but
without attaining a high level of education, due to socio-
economic problems early in life.
7. Conclusion
To encourage a more sustainable and circular economy, this
study addresses the root determinant of household recycling
behavior. The widely used behavioral theories (e.g. TPB and
NAM), cite social norms as the foremost antecedent of recycling
behavior. This study makes its contribution by modeling the
disentangled influence of social norms (informational and infor-
mative) on recycling behavior by benefiting from TPB and NAM.
From theoretical perspective, such disentanglement allows the
identification of the extent to which performance of recycling
behavior relates to the internalization process and the conve-
nience provided in different contexts. Thus, it delivers an explana-
tion as to why some studies failed to find the significant influence
of social norms on recycling behavior (Hage et al., 2009;
Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013). This study also helps practitioners
promote social norms in supporting the household recycling
bins have direct effect on recycling behavior. Another important
finding is that education level positively affects recycling
behavior.
This study has a number of limitations that may guide future
work. First, altruistic behaviors are prone to overestimation, and
therefore, the measurement of recycling behavior relying on self-
reports could be problematic. However, it is still sufficiently reli-
able based on the finding that the uses of self-report and real
observation, give positively correlated results (Huffman et al.,
2014). Second, this study was conducted in a collectivistic social
context. Future work is suggested to test this study’s model also
on individualistic social contexts for the generalizability of results.
Moreover, the construct ‘‘personal norms” had to be excluded from
the original model, due to its validity problems. Future studies
might investigate the mediating role of personal norms in recycling
behavior. Likewise, house size, used as the proxy of available space
for recycling in this study, could be replaced with other measures
to check the robustness of results. Finally, in this study, conve-
nience was used to capture the normative influence of social norms
on recycling behavior. Future studies can further elaborate this by
including financial rewards and penalties (Park, 2018) into their
analysis.
Acknowledgement
The author(s) would like to express their gratitude to Seferi-
hisar Municipality for the support provided for the reproduction
and distribution of questionnaire forms.
Appendix A. Types of effects in mediation analysis
Figs. A1 and A2 show direct, indirect, and total effects in a sim-
ple mediation model. The path c in Fig. A1 denotes the total effect
of X on Y. This total effect is decomposed into two in Fig. A2. While
the path c1 denotes the direct effect of X on Y by controlling M, the
paths a and b denote the indirect effect of X on Y through M.
Appendix B. Correlations among variables
See Tables B1 and B2.
Fig. A1. Total effect of X on Y. Source: Preacher and Hayes (2004)

behavior, as an understanding of how social norms work in a col-

lectivistic context allows policy-makers to develop the relevant
and successful policies.
This study shows that the internalization process triggered by
social norms leads individuals to acquire the task knowledge
necessary for the act of recycling behavior; however, this process
does not end with actual recycling behavior. Rather, according to
the findings of this study, the individuals perform the act of
recycling when they find it convenient. At this point, this study
shows that social norms, distance to recycling bins, and the
available space for recycling are the variables that determine
the level of convenience perceived by individuals. In addition,
the results reveal that social norms and the distance to recycling Fig. A2. Indirect effect of X on Y through M. Source: Preacher and Hayes (2004)
 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370 369

Table B1
Correlation matrix of observed variables.

SN1 SN2 PN1 PN2 PN3 AC1 AC2 AC3 EF1 EF2 EF3 TK1 TK2 PC1 PC2 PC3 RB1 RB2 HH DB HS
SN1 1
SN2 .846 1
PN1 .131 .123 1
PN2 .550 .516 .251 1
PN3 .187 .207 .071 .251 1
AC1 .095 .105 .206 .117 .052 1
AC2 .498 .530 .123 .584 .194 .040 1
AC3 .526 .539 .089 .615 .223 .085 .918 1
EF1 .329 .342 .122 .478 .293 .037 .576 .602 1
EF2 .399 .420 .109 .506 .313 .004 .710 .701 .857 1
EF3 .406 .442 .086 .459 .321 .033 .691 .716 .848 .941 1
TK1 .316 .302 .092 .599 .261 .024 .503 .535 .700 .722 .668 1
TK2 .214 .212 .048 .432 .341 .055 .230 .289 .456 .470 .461 .531 1
PC1 .255 .294 .311 .274 .289 .242 .241 .229 .107 .136 .162 .072 .185 1
PC2 .302 .343 .307 .314 .286 .210 .270 .247 .113 .158 .178 .088 .202 .930 1
PC3 .192 .210 .323 .226 .289 .189 .105 .087 .040 .001 .041 .039 .140 .719 .726 1
RB1 .183 .246 .113 .215 .325 .113 .063 .065 .016 .002 .034 .001 .071 .324 .340 .323 1
RB2 .382 .376 .148 .308 .383 .126 .184 .202 .128 .120 .107 .165 .118 .273 .282 .294 .642 1
HH .191 .189 .105 .118 .026 .139 .195 .176 .070 .118 .111 .026 .001 .075 .092 .025 .043 .038 1
DB .104 .024 .009 .106 .075 .080 .134 .072 .002 .010 .017 .010 .301 .120 .100 .118 .149 .095 .024 1
HS .214 .217 .133 .192 .041 .084 .165 .201 .022 .069 .100 .048 .056 .291 .286 .242 .046 .162 .285 .013 1

Table B2
Correlation matrix of latent variables.

Square root of AVE Social Awareness of Efficacy Task Perceived Recycling

score norms consequences knowledge convenience behavior
.919 Social norms 1
.782 Awareness of consequences .556 1
.940 Efficacy .423 .708 1
.756 Task knowledge .310 .453 .689 1
.897 Perceived convenience .301 .214 .107 .132 1
.808 Recycling behavior .339 .143 .063 .111 .369 1

References Chalmin, P., Gaillochet, C., 2009. From waste to resource, An abstract of world waste
survey. Cyclope, Veolia Environmental Services, Edition Economica, France.
Culiberg, B., 2014. Towards an understanding of consumer recycling from an ethical
Afroz, R., Hanaki, K., Tuddin, R., Ayup, K., 2010. A survey of recycling behaviour in
perspective. Int. J. Consumer Stud. 38 (1), 90–97.
households in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Waste Manage. Res. 28 (6), 552–560.
Dai, Y.C., Gordon, M.P.R., Ye, J.Y., Xu, D.Y., Lin, Z.Y., Robinson, N.K.L., Harder, M.K.,
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., Reno, R.R., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and
2015. Why doorstepping can increase household waste recycling. Resour.
Interpreting Interactions. Sage.
Conserv. Recycl. 102, 9–19.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
Davies, J., Foxall, G.R., Pallister, J., 2002. Beyond the intention–behaviour
50 (2), 179–211.
mythology: an integrated model of recycling. Mark. Theory 2 (1), 29–113.
Ajzen, I., 2011. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol.
De Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., 2015. Using the theory of planned
Health 26 (9), 1113–1127.
behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-
Arı, E., Yılmaz, V., 2016. A proposed structural model for housewives’ recycling
school students: Implications for educational interventions. J. Environ. Psychol.
behavior: A case study from Turkey. Ecol. Econ. 129, 132–142.
42, 128–138.
Azar, S.K., Azar, S.S., 2016. Waste related pollutions and their potential effect on
Ekere, W., Mugisha, J., Drake, L., 2009. Factors influencing waste separation and
cancer incidences in Lebanon. J. Environ. Prot. 7 (06), 778.
utilization among households in the Lake Victoria crescent, Uganda. Waste
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
Manage. 29 (12), 3047–3051.
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
Ertürk, A., 2008. A trust-based approach to promote employees’ openness to
considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173.
organizational change in Turkey. Int. J. Manpower 29 (5), 462–483.
Bell, J., Huber, J., Viscusi, W.K., 2017. Fostering recycling participation in Wisconsin
Fornara, F., Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., Bonnes, M., 2011. Distinguishing the sources of
households through single-stream programs. Land Econ. 93 (3), 481–502.
normative influence on proenvironmental behaviors: The role of local norms in
Bernstad, A., 2014. Household food waste separation behavior and the importance
household waste recycling. Group Processes Intergroup Relations 14 (5), 623–
of convenience. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 34 (7), 1317–1323.
635.
Bezzina, F.H., Dimech, S., 2011. Investigating the determinants of recycling
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
behaviour in Malta. Manage. Environ. Quality: Int. J. 22 (4), 463–485.
unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res., 39–50
Boonrod, K., Towprayoon, S., Bonnet, S., Tripetchkul, S., 2015. Enhancing organic
Gravetter, F.J., Wallnau, L.B., 2016. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Cengage
waste separation at the source behavior: A case study of the application of
Learning.
motivation mechanisms in communities in Thailand. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
Guerin, D., Crete, J., Mercier, J., 2001. A multilevel analysis of the determinants of
95, 77–90.
recycling behavior in the European countries. Soc. Sci. Res. 30 (2), 195–218.
Botetzagias, I., Dima, A.F., Malesios, C., 2015. Extending the theory of planned
Hage, O., Söderholm, P., Berglund, C., 2009. Norms and economic motivation in
behavior in the context of recycling: The role of moral norms and of
household recycling: empirical evidence from Sweden. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
demographic predictors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 95, 58–67.
53 (3), 155–165.
Briguglio, M., 2016. Household cooperation in waste management: initial
Harland, P., Staats, H., Wilke, H.A., 2007. Situational and personality factors as direct
conditions and intervention. J. Econ. Surv. 30 (3), 497–525.
or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior:
Brough, A.R., Wilkie, J.E., Ma, J., Isaac, M.S., Gal, D., 2016. Is eco-friendly unmanly?
Questions derived from norm-activation theory. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29
The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. J.
(4), 323–334.
Consumer Res. 43 (4), 567–582.
Harman, H.H., 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Budak, F., Oguz, B., 2008. Household participation in recycling programs: A case
Hayes, A.F., 2017. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
study from Turkey. J. Environ. Biol. 29 (6), 923–927.
Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. Guilford Publications.
Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts,
Hoe, S.L., 2008. Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling
Applications, and Programming. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
technique. J. Appl. Quant. Methods 3 (1), 76–83.
370 M.F. Sorkun / Waste Management 80 (2018) 359–370
Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., Narayana, C., 1995. Determinants of recycling
behavior: A synthesis of research results. J. Socio-Econ. 24 (1), 105–127.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Eq. Model.:
Multidisciplinary J. 6 (1), 1–55.
Huffman, A.H., Van Der Werff, B.R., Henning, J.B., Watrous-Rodriguez, K., 2014.
When do recycling attitudes predict recycling? An investigation of self-reported
versus observed behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 262–270.
Iacobucci, D., 2010. Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and
advanced topics. J. Consumer Psychol. 20 (1), 90–98.
IPCC, 2013. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: T.F., Qin, D.,
Plattner, G.-K., et al. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker.
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, U.S. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/
ar5/wg1/.
Kline, R.B., 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, the
Guilford Press, New York.
Klöckner, C.A., 2013. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental
behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global Environ. Change 23 (5), 1028–1038.
Le Courtois, Alexandra., 2012. Municipal Solid Waste: turning a problem into
resource. Private Sector & Development, 15.
Liao, C., Zhao, D., Zhang, S., Chen, L., 2018. Determinants and the moderating effect
of perceived policy effectiveness on residents’ separation intention for rural
household solid waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15 (4), 726.
Marshall, R.E., Farahbakhsh, K., 2013. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste
management in developing countries. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 33 (4), 988–
1003.
Meen-Chee, H., Narayanan, S., 2006. Restoring the shine to a pearl: Recycling
behaviour in Penang, Malaysia. Dev. Change 37 (5), 1117–1136.
Meyer, A., 2015. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence
from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 116, 108–121.
Miafodzyeva, S., Brandt, N., 2013. Recycling behaviour among householders:
synthesizing determinants via a meta-analysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 4
(2), 221–235.
Miller, J., (2017, September 11). Lack of participation, confusion plagues Phoenix
recycle program. Arizona Capitol Times. Retrieved from https://
azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/09/11/phoenix-recycle-compost-program-
confusion/.
Miliute-Plepiene, J., Hage, O., Plepys, A., Reipas, A., 2016. What motivates
households recycling behaviour in recycling schemes of different maturity?
Lessons from Lithuania and Sweden. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 113, 40–52.
Moecke, E.H.S., Feller, R., dos Santos, H.A., de Medeiros Machado, M., Cubas, A.L.V.,
de Aguiar Dutra, A.R., Soares, S.R., 2016. Biodiesel production from waste
cooking oil for use as fuel in artisanal fishing boats: Integrating environmental,
economic and social aspects. J. Cleaner Prod. 135, 679–688.
Morren, M., Grinstein, A., 2016. Explaining environmental behavior across borders:
A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 47, 91–106.
Naroznova, I., Møller, J., Scheutz, C., 2016. Global warming potential of material
fractions occurring in source-separated organic household waste treated by
anaerobic digestion or incineration under different framework conditions.
Waste Manage. (Oxford) 58, 397–407.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oskamp, S., Harrington, M.J., Edwards, T.C., Sherwood, D.L., Okuda, S.M., Swanson, D.
C., 1991. Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environ. Behavior 23
(4), 494–519.
Oztekin, C., Teksöz, G., Pamuk, S., Sahin, E., Kilic, D.S., 2017. Gender perspective on
the factors predicting recycling behavior: Implications from the theory of
planned behavior. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 62, 290–302.
Padilla, A.J., Trujillo, J.C., 2018. Waste disposal and households’ Heterogeneity.
Identifying factors shaping attitudes towards source-separated recycling in
Bogotá, Colombia. Waste Manage. 74, 16–33.
Pakpour, A.H., Zeidi, I.M., Emamjomeh, M.M., Asefzadeh, S., Pearson, H., 2014.
Household waste behaviours among a community sample in Iran: An
application of the theory of planned behaviour. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 34
(6), 980–986.
Park, J., Ha, S., 2014. Understanding consumer recycling behavior: Combining the
theory of planned behavior and the norm activation model. Family Consumer
Sci. Res. J. 42 (3), 278–291.
Park, S., 2018. Factors influencing the recycling rate under the volume-based waste
fee system in South Korea. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 74, 43–51.
Pellegrini, E.K., Scandura, T.A., 2006. Leader–member exchange (LMX), paternalism,
and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. J. Int.
Business Studies 37 (2), 264–279.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. J. Manage. 12 (4), 531–544.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods, Instrum., Comput. 36
(4), 717–731.
Ramayah, Thurasamy, lee, Jason Wai Chow, lim, Shuwen, 2012. Shuwen. Sustaining
the environment through recycling: An empirical study. J. Environ Manage. 102,
141–147.
Redling, A., 2018, June 6. Why low participation might be to blame for NYC’s
suspended organics program. Waste Today Magazine. Retrieved from http://
www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/new-york-organics-collection-halted/.
Robinson, E., 2015. Perceived social norms and eating behaviour: an evaluation of
studies and future directions. Physiol. Behav. 152, 397–401.
Rousta, K., Ordoñez, I., Bolton, K., Dahlén, L., 2017. Support for designing waste
sorting systems: A mini review. Waste Manage. Res. 35 (11), 1099–1111.
Rousta, K., Bolton, K., Lundin, M., Dahlén, L., 2015. Quantitative assessment of
distance to collection point and improved sorting information on source
separation of household waste. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 40, 22–30.
Seacat, J.D., Boileau, N., 2018. Demographic and community-level predictors of
recycling behavior: A statewide, assessment. J. Environ. Psychol. 56, 12–19.
Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10,
221–279.
Shearer, L., Gatersleben, B., Morse, S., Smyth, M., Hunt, S., 2017. A problem unstuck?
Evaluating the effectiveness of sticker prompts for encouraging household food
waste recycling behaviour. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 60, 164–172.
Sidique, S.F., Lupi, F., Joshi, S.V., 2010. The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-
off recycling activities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (3), 163–170.
Sniehotta, F.F., Presseau, J., Araújo-Soares, V., 2014. Time to retire the theory of
planned behaviour. Heath Psychol. Rev. 8 (7), 1–7.
Sobel, M.E., 1986. Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in
covariance structure models. Sociol. Methodol. 16, 159–186.
Stoeva, K., Alriksson, S., 2017. Influence of recycling programmes on waste
separation behaviour. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 68, 732–741.
Tadesse, T., 2009. Environmental concern and its implication to household waste
separation and disposal: Evidence from Mekelle, Ethiopia. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 53 (4), 183–191.
Tai, J., Zhang, W., Che, Y., Feng, D., 2011. Municipal solid waste source-separated
collection in China. A comparative analysis. Waste Manage. 31 (8), 1673–1682.
Thi, N.B.D., Kumar, G., Lin, C.Y., 2015. An overview of food waste management in
developing countries: current status and future perspective. J. Environ. Manage.
157, 220–229.
Timlett, R.E., Williams, I.D., 2009. The impact of transient populations on recycling
behaviour in a densely populated urban environment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
53 (9), 498–506.
Thomas, C., Sharp, V., 2013. Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour
and its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: A review of social
norms and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 79, 11–20.
Toelch, U., Dolan, R.J., 2015. Informational and normative influences in conformity
from a neurocomputational perspective. Trends Cognitive Sci. 19 (10), 579–589.
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S., Read, A.D., 2004. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to
investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from
Brixworth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 41 (3), 191–214.
Valle, P.O.D., Rebelo, E., Reis, E., Menezes, J., 2005. Combining behavioral theories to
predict recycling involvement. Environ. Behav. 37 (3), 364–396.
Valle, P.O.D., Reis, E., Menezes, J., Rebelo, E., 2004. Behavioral determinants of
household recycling participation: the Portuguese case. Environ. Behav. 36 (4),
505–540.
Varotto, A., Spagnolli, A., 2017. Psychological strategies to promote household
recycling. A systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field
interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 168–188.
Wan, C., Shen, G.Q., Yu, A., 2014. The role of perceived effectiveness of policy
measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 83, 141–151.
Wilson, D., Rodic, L., Modak, P., Soos, R., Carpintero, A., Velis, K., Iyer, M., Simonett,
O., 2015. Global Waste Management Outlook; United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA): Nairobi.
World Bank, 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.
Word Bank, Washington, DC.
Xevgenos, D., Papadaskalopoulou, C., Panaretou, V., Moustakas, K., Malamis, D.,
2015. Success stories for recycling of MSW at municipal level: A review. Waste
Biomass Valorization 6 (5), 657–684.
Yano, J., Aoki, T., Nakamura, K., Yamada, K., Sakai, S.I., 2015. Life cycle assessment of
hydrogenated biodiesel production from waste cooking oil using the catalytic
cracking and hydrogenation method. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 38, 409–423.