Waste Management 105 (2020) 119–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Analysis of e-waste recycling behavior based on survey at a Midwestern

US University
A.L. Arain a,b, R. Pummill c, J. Adu-Brimpong d, S. Becker a, M. Green e, M. Ilardi e, E. Van Dam c, R.L. Neitzel a,⇑
a
University of Michigan School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States
b
Oakland University School of Health Sciences, Environmental Health and Safety, 433 Meadow Brook Road, Rochester, MI 48309, United States
c
University of Michigan Law School, 625 S State St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States
d
University of Michigan School of Information, 105 S State St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States
e
University of Michigan Ross School of Business, 701 Tappan Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States

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

Article history: The United States lacks a set of unified electronic waste recycling laws, contributing in part to the
Received 10 September 2019 observed low rate of e-waste recycling behaviors among consumers. Individual factors of consumers con-
Revised 8 January 2020 tributing to the low recycling rates are not well understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate
Accepted 3 February 2020
consumer behaviors, including barriers, surrounding e-waste recycling at a large Midwestern university
in the United States. A survey was administered to faculty, graduate students, undergraduate students,
and staff to determine their personal recycling habits, knowledge, and beliefs. The results indicate that
Keywords:
free access to disposal, lack of consumer knowledge about products and disposal sites, and access to a
E-waste
Consumer knowledge
recycling facility within a reasonable distance are all important factors in consumer decisions. Policy-
Recycling behavior makers and waste management professionals should focus on promotion of e-waste recycling behaviors
Landfill through increased access to free or low-cost recycling as well as through the creation of recycling
incentives.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Electronic waste (‘‘e-waste”) contains hazardous materials
including lead, cadmium, flame retardants, and others that can
enter the environment and impair human health if improperly dis-
posed of (Luo et al., 2011; Robinson, 2009; Widmer et al., 2005).
Electronics that are not recycled at appropriate facilities can end
up in landfills where they leach dangerous chemicals into the
ground water, and where otherwise recoverable materials are lost
(Zeng et al., 2018). Alternatively, discarded e-waste may be
exported to low- or middle-income countries where the materials
are recycled using dangerous methods that endanger the workers
and contaminate the local environment (Arain and Neitzel, 2019;
Grant et al., 2013; Wong et al., 2007). When done responsibly,
however, recycling e-waste not only reduces the amount of haz-
ardous waste that ends up in landfills but can also recover precious
metals that would otherwise have to be mined to produce new
electronics (Wang et al., 2012).
E-waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams globally
(Lundgren, 2012), with 22% of global e-waste being produced in
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rneitzel@umich.edu (R.L. Neitzel).
the United States (Baldé et al., 2017). Design of electronic products
as well as changing technologies makes it difficult or impossible for
consumers to repair or upgrade existing e-waste products, creating
a high turnover rate of electronic goods. Additionally, growing
markets in developing countries, new devices, and increasing
inclusion of electronics into existing products (i.e. refrigerator
LCD displays) contribute to the growing number of electronic prod-
ucts consumed each year. Despite the high generation rate of e-
waste relative to the rest of the globe, the U.S. does not have a
national set of regulations regarding this waste stream. Addition-
ally, the US has a low recycling rate of electronics. The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that in 2015 only 39.8%
of consumer electronics were recycled in the U.S. (US EPA, 2019).
Furthermore, the U.S. is one of the few countries that has failed
to ratify the Basel Convention, an international treaty designed to
regulate the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes,
including e-waste, and their disposal (Lepawsky, 2015). These pol-
icy gaps leave the burden of e-waste regulation with the State gov-
ernments. Therefore, the policies related to e-waste vary from state
to state. Of particular interest in this study is the e-waste legisla-
tion in the Midwestern United States.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.002
0956-053X/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
120 A.L. Arain et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 119–127
1.1. E-waste recycling in the Midwestern United States
Among the Midwestern states, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Ohio have not adopted any e-waste
legislation. The remaining Midwestern states – Minnesota, Wis-
consin, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, and Michigan – have adopted
some variation of a producer responsibility law (Electronics
Takeback Coalition, 2019). Several states, including Michigan and
Minnesota, have adopted mandatory e-waste takeback programs.
These laws require that electronics manufacturers register with
government and set up an electronic takeback program that is free
and convenient for households and small businesses (‘‘Michigan
Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy,” 2019;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, n.d.). The law in both Michi-
gan and Minnesota is limited to TVs and computers, although the
definition of computer includes most tablets. As an example, in
2013, Michigan saw 93% compliance with the law among manufac-
turers, although a majority of manufacturers (57%) chose to main-
tain mail-back only programs to comply with the law (Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, 2013).
Historically, Michigan has had a low recycling rate for all recy-
clable materials (15% in 2013) compared to the national average
(34.3% in 2013) (Paben, 2016; Resource Recycling Systems, 2016).
The rate of e-waste recycling is no different. In 2015, the EPA esti-
mated that 3.1 million tons of consumer electronics were generated
in the United States – 1.2 million tons of which were recycled, result-
ing in a national e-waste recycling rate of 37.5% (US EPA, 2019). In
Michigan, 210,334 tons of e-waste were generated and only
21,010 tons were recycled, which resulted in an e-waste recycling
rate of only 5.7% (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
2016; Schoonmaker et al., 2016). E-waste recycling rate data do
not appear to be readily available from other Midwest states.
Wisconsin has a slightly more rigorous e-waste take-back pro-
gram that applies to several types of electronics beyond televisions
and computers (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2019).
In addition, Wisconsin and Indiana have banned the disposal of a
large variety of e-waste products in municipal garbage; however,
these bans apply only to households, public schools, and small busi-
nesses (Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 2019;
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2019).
One of the most important considerations in improving e-waste
recycling rates in the U.S. and abroad is consumers. This group not
only drives the increasing demand for new electronic products, but
they will ultimately make decisions about the end-of-life disposal
of electronic products after the use phase is complete. Therefore, it
is important to understand consumer knowledge and awareness of
e-waste disposal in order to design and implement successful e-
waste collection programs (Gurauskien, 2008). Despite the impor-
tance of consumer knowledge in end-of-life decisions, they gener-
ally have low education about environmental impacts of e-waste
(Lu et al., 2014). Unfortunately, consumers’ e-waste awareness
and disposal behaviors have largely been ignored in the e-waste
literature (Borthakur and Govind, 2017).
The few research studies conducted on electronic consumer
recycling behaviors have shown that factors such as data security,
convenience of recycling, availability of and access to recycling
facilities, education/awareness, as well as cost of recycling are
among the major concerns determining recycling decisions
(Cairns, 2005). Studies from different populations across the globe
have repeatedly shown that consumers are under-recycling their
electronics for these reasons, though the importance of each factor
varies (Echegaray and Hansstein, 2017; Favot and Grassetti, 2017;
Nnorom et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2016). Socio-economic factors,
such as education and income, have also been found to be signifi-
cant in predicting recycling behaviors (Saphores et al., 2006; Song
et al., 2012).
Various strategies for behavior change among consumers have
been identified to promote pro-environmental behaviors, including
recycling (Steg and Vlek, 2009). Recycling behavior can also be
motivated by convenience of recycling opportunities (Meneses
and Palacio, 2005). Reduced distance to collection point saves con-
sumers on the time-cost and increases recycling behavior (Rousta
et al., 2015). Monetary considerations of recycling, including cost
and incentives, are significant predictors of recycling behavior with
traditional recycling materials (e.g., paper) (Hornik et al., 1995).
Intrinsic factors have also been shown to influence pro-
environmental behaviors. Personal and social norms that govern
behavior are influenced by awareness of an issue, understanding
of the consequences of a given behavior and acceptance of conse-
quences, as well as a belief that a person has the ability to perform
a given action (Klockner, 2013). Knowledge of environmental
impacts associated with various behaviors have also been shown
to be predictors of recycling behaviors (Goldenhar and Connell,
1991; Meneses and Palacio, 2005; Saphores et al., 2012).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate consumer behaviors
surrounding e-waste recycling at a large Midwestern U.S. univer-
sity. Our primary objectives were to evaluate consumer e-waste
behaviors, values, and understanding among different levels of
affiliation with the chosen university. Additionally, we wanted to
understand the barriers to recycling e-waste among this group.
Our findings inform potential interventions to improve e-waste
awareness, knowledge, and opportunities for engagement in
proper e-waste management practices amongst consumers.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study population
This study was conducted at a large Midwestern university in
the United States. We sought to enroll participants with various
affiliations at the university, including students, staff, and faculty.
The university is situated in a county with local government-
sponsored clean-up events that allow free disposal of one e-
waste item and then request a $10 donation for each additional
item. There is also a recycling center within the city where the uni-
versity is located (more detail in discussion). Institutional review
board approval was obtained from the University of Michigan
(HUM00152896).
2.2. Survey design
A 30-question survey was generated from a critical review of
e-waste-related literature. A brief literature search for relevant
articles was conducted and the studies were reviewed to deter-
mine the types of questions that were asked in similar e-waste sur-
veys. Through group discussions, as well as consultations with
faculty and staff at the university with expertise in e-waste issues,
the survey was honed to 15 questions (excluding demographics)
assessing four main concepts: (1) Ownership and knowledge of
e-waste products, (2) e-waste recycling behaviors, (3) knowledge
of e-waste recycling options in area, and (4) degree of action and
willingness to engage in appropriate recycling. Five questions on
demographics were also included in the survey. The survey instru-
ment used can be found in Appendix 1. All 20 questions asked, as
well as possible choices, are provided.
2.3. Distribution
The survey was built in Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Seattle, WA) and
distributed through email to 2500 students across 19 schools at
the selected university as well as 5000 randomly selected faculty
and staff using university-affiliated email addresses The surveying
 A.L. Arain et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 119–127 121

period was two weeks during Fall of 2018. One hundred $20 gift ditioner, batteries, calculator, CD/DVD, cell phone, lamp, laptop,
cards were utilized as incentives for participation; all survey par- microwave, printer, and television), at the end of their useable life,
ticipants had an equal probability of winning a gift card. can be considered ‘‘e-waste”. These items were intended to repre-
sent products that would clearly constitute e-waste (i.e. computer,
2.4. Data analysis cellphone, etc.), as well as things that are not as obvious and
require a bit of knowledge about e-waste (i.e. lamp, microwave,
All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp, etc.). The number of respondents from each affiliation type who
Armonk, NY). Descriptive analytics were run on all demographic correctly identified each item as e-waste is shown in Table 2 along
data. Frequency and count analysis was performed on relevant sur- with the total number who correctly identified each item out of all
vey questions. Where appropriate, chi-squared or ANOVA tests respondents. The e-waste item, lamp, was least correctly identified
were run to test for significant difference between different demo- by all respondents (35.4% correctly identified this item as e-waste),
graphic variables, particularly between university affiliation and the number of correct answers was significantly different
groups. The significance level for statistical tests was set at 0.05. among the affiliation groups (p < 0.05) with undergraduate stu-
dents most frequently correctly identifying lamps as e-waste
3. Results (41.7%). A score (out of a possible 10) is given at the bottom of
Table 2 showing the mean and standard deviation number of prod-
3.1. Demographics ucts correctly identified as e-waste by each group. Scores between
groups were not significantly different (p = 0.055). Additionally,
The results of demographic questions are displayed in Table 1. Table 2 shows the number of respondents for each affiliation cate-
Overall, we received 1718 responses (22.90% response rate) with gory, as well as the total number of participants, who answered
155 responses removed prior to analysis due to unfinished surveys affirmatively when asked if they were aware of options for recy-
and 3 responses removed from individuals less than 18 years old. cling e-waste near them. Nearly one-third (29.0%) of all partici-
Our final sample size was 1560. The majority of respondents were pants were aware of e-waste recycling options near them, with
female (68.7%), followed by males (28.4%) and non-binary individ- faculty and staff being significantly (p < 0.001) more likely to be
uals or those who did not indicate gender (2.7%). More than half of aware of these options.
respondents (61.2%) identified as Non-Hispanic White race/ethnic-
ity, while an additional 16.6% identified as Asian. Considering uni- 3.3. E-waste behavior and values
versity affiliation, graduate students constituted the largest group
(40.0%) of respondents, followed by staff (35.7%) and undergradu- Fig. 1 shows the method(s) of disposal that participants
ate students (15.1%). Lastly, 88.0% of respondents reported living in reported using during their time living in the town where the uni-
off-campus housing as compared to roughly 12% of respondents versity is located. Storage of e-waste products within the home
who live in on-campus housing (graduate students: 6.3%, under- was the most common method selected (42.8% of participants),
graduate students: 5.7%). while donation of used electronics was the second most common
response (40.8% of participants). Only 8.5% of participants reported
3.2. E-waste knowledge participating in buy-back programs.
Participants were asked ‘‘On a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the
The results of questions designed to evaluate consumer knowl- most, how important do you think that it is for consumers to dis-
edge of what constitutes e-waste are shown in Table 2. We asked pose of unwanted products they own in a sustainable manner?”.
participants to identify which products out of a list of 10 (air con- The responses to this question are shown in Fig. 2, with a Likert
scale added to help with interpretation of the scoring (1 to 5, with
Table 1 5 being the most important). Results of a chi-square test showed a
Demographic information of survey respondents.
relationship between university affiliation and importance placed
Variable N (%) on consumer stewardship of waste (p < 0.001). Although the most
Gender common response for each affiliation category was 5, or most
Male 438 (28.1) important, faculty and staff were more likely to rate the impor-
Female 1076 (69.0) tance at ‘‘5” compared to other categories. Only 50.6% of under-
Non-binary 13 (0.8)
graduates, 52.4% of other affiliation, and 58.3% of graduate
Prefer not to answer 30 (1.9)
Missing 3 (0.2) students were likely to assign a rating of ‘‘5” compared to roughly
Race/Ethnicity 67% of faculty and staff.
Non-Hispanic White 955 (61.2) The responses to questions assessing the values of participants
Non-Hispanic Black 65 (4.2)
surrounding e-waste recycling are displayed in Table 3. Respon-
Hispanic 70 (4.5)
Asian 259 (16.6)
dents who reported never recycling e-waste using formal methods
Middle Eastern/North African 30 (1.9) (n = 692) were asked why they did not use formal methods. Nearly
Other 85 (5.4) three-quarters (73.8%) reported that they were not aware of any e-
Prefer not to answer 91 (5.8) waste recycling services near them; 4.0% believed their standard
Missing 5 (0.3)
trash or recycling pickup service would take care of it; 1.4% did
Affiliation
Faculty 102 (6.5) not have time to recycle e-waste; 1.0% did not care about recycling
Staff 557 (35.7) e-waste; 1.0% knew of an e-waste recycling facility but it was too far
Graduate Student 624 (40.0) away; 0.3% reported that e-waste recycling was too expensive; and
Undergraduate Student 235 (15.1)
17.5% chose more than one of the previous reasons for their reason
Other* 42 (2.7)
Location of Residence
for not recycling e-waste using formal methods (data not shown).
Off-Campus Housing 1373 (88.0)
On-Campus Housing (Graduate) 98 (6.3) 3.4. E-waste quantities
On-Campus Housing (Undergraduate) 89 (5.7)
*
‘‘Other” affiliation includes hospital residents, hospital workers, alumni, and The number of electronics currently used by participants as well
postdoctoral fellows. as the number of waste electronics owned by participants is shown
122 A.L. Arain et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 119–127

Table 2
Percent of consumers who correctly identified different types and were aware of e-waste recycling options near their home.

% participants correctly identifying e-waste or aware of disposal options

University Affiliation Group
Variable Faculty Staff Graduate Student Undergraduate Student Other Total
Type of e-waste Percent (%)
Air Conditioner 51.0 53.5 53.5 64.3 47.6 56.2*
Batteries 70.6 74.9 86.2 85.1 78.6 80.8***
Calculator 78.4 74.0 79.2 77.9 69.0 76.8
CD/DVD 47.1 47.8 51.9 56.2 45.2 50.1
Cell Phone 95.1 92.6 95.2 92.8 100.0 94.0
Lamp 30.4 30.7 33.7 41.7 30.7 35.4*
Laptop 95.1 92.6 91.5 90.2 90.5 91.9
Microwave 65.7 68.2 71.3 68.9 66.7 69.4
Printer 82.4 85.5 83.8 83.0 88.1 84.3
Television 89.2 87.1 88.6 88.1 83.3 87.9
Aware of disposal options 47.1 43.2 17.9 19.6 14.3 29.0***
Mean (sd)
Correct e-waste identification score (out of 10) 7.1 (2.3) 7.4 (2.3) 7.4 (2.3) 7.5 (2.3) 7.0 (2.3) 7.3 (2.3)

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Buy Back Programs

E-waste disposal methods

Collection Events

Donate

Resell

Standard Recycling Bin

Storage

Trash

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Percent of participants reporting each method
Fig. 1. Method(s) of e-waste disposal utilized during residence in university community showing the percent of participants out of the total that selected each disposal
method (Note: Participants were allowed to select more than one method).

1000

900

800
Number of Participants (Count)

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Not At All Important A Little Important Somewhat important Fairly Important Very Important Missing
Faculty Staff Graduate Student Undergraduate Student Other

Fig. 2. Responses of participants (count) by university affiliation to the question: ‘‘How important do you think it is for consumers to dispose of unwanted products they own
in a sustainable manner?” p < 0.001.
 A.L. Arain et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 119–127 123

Table 3
Responses of participants to various questions about their values regarding the recycling of e-waste.

How often do you recycle e-waste using formal methods?

n (%)
Frequency Never Sometimes Usually Always Missing
Faculty 29 (28.4) 24 (23.5) 26 (25.5) 23 (22.6) 0
Staff 201 (36.1) 144 (25.8) 113 (20.3) 98 (17.6) 1 (0.2)
Graduate 305 (48.9) 183 (29.3) 88 (14.1) 47 (7.5) 1 (0.2)
Undergraduate 131 (55.7) 53 (22.6) 36 (15.3) 14 (6.0) 1 (0.4)
Other 26 (61.9) 9 (21.4) 5 (11.9) 2 (4.8) 0
Total 692 (44.4) 413 (26.5) 268 (17.2) 184 (11.8) 3 (0.2)
How important are the following factors in your decision to recycle e-waste?
n (%)
Factor Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important Missing
Free recycling 1095 (70.2) 355 (22.8) 92 (5.9) 13 (0.8) 5 (0.3)
Distance to facility 795 (51.0) 567 (36.3) 184 (11.8) 10 (0.6) 4 (0.3)
Pickup of e-waste 578 (37.1) 421 (27.0) 347 (22.2) 203 (13.0) 11 (0.7)
Knowledge of where/how e-waste is recycled 556 (35.6) 451 (28.9) 343 (22.0) 201 (12.9) 9 (0.6)
Incentives/rewards 777 (49.8) 543 (34.8) 194 (12.4) 37 (2.4) 9 (0.6)

in Fig. 3. Although a large percentage of participants reported own-
ing no small appliances (72%), about 75% still reported having at
least one waste small appliance. Appendix 2 shows the responses
to the number of currently owned electronics, as well as waste
electronics in the home, broken down by affiliation category. Chi-
squared tests showed that the number of electronics (current or
waste) was significantly dependent (p < 0.01) on university affilia-
tion level (faculty, staff, graduate student, undergraduate, other)
for each category of electronic (data not shown). Additionally, a
chi-square test between the e-waste knowledge score variable
(Table 2) and the number of small appliances (Appendix 2 or
Fig. 3) showed that participants who had a higher knowledge score
were significantly more likely to report having more small appli-
ances and handheld devices (p < 0.01) (test data not shown).
3.5. Replacement time
Table 4 shows the typical replacement rate of various types of
electronics reported by respondents. For each electronic, the
majority of responses indicated that the products were kept for
more than 24 months. When asked if they considered the ultimate
impact that the disposal of a product would have on the environ-
ment, only 30.3% of respondents reported that they did (data not
shown).
3.6. Willingness to pay
When asked if participants would be willing to pay a fee at the
time of purchase of a new electronic to cover the cost of recycling
of the product in a sustainable manner at the end of its life, approx-
imately one-third (33.7%) of participants replied that they would
be willing to pay a fee, while 33.9% were unsure and 32.1% were
unwilling (0.3% missing) (Table 5). Results of a chi-square test
showed that affiliation had a relationship with willingness to pay
a fee with faculty most willing to pay a fee (54.9% responded ‘‘yes”)
and staff most unwilling to pay a fee (41.1% responded ‘‘no”). The
amount that participants would be willing to pay at the time of
recycling e-waste is shown in Table 5. Note that this question
was only presented to participants who responded ‘‘yes” or ‘‘un-
sure” to the question assessing if they would be willing to pay a
fee. Overall, participants were willing to pay an average of $12.6
to recycle a 32” television, and $2.90 to recycle a battery. Results
of a one-way ANOVA showed that the mean willingness to pay
was significantly different for each affiliation category for all 4
electronics listed (p < 0.001). Undergraduate students had the
highest mean willingness to pay for batteries, cell phones, and
32” televisions, while graduate students had the highest mean
willingness to pay for laptops.
4. Discussion
Our study results contribute important information to the liter-
ature on e-waste recycling and consumer behaviors. First, our
study demonstrates that cost and convenience are the most impor-
tant factors to the consumers in our study population’s decision to
recycle e-waste formally or not. Secondly, show that consumers
have a poor knowledge of what e-waste is, as well as where it
can be disposed of. Finally, despite majority of respondents stating
that they considered the sustainable disposal of products ‘‘ex-
tremely important”, nearly half reported never recycling e-waste
through formal methods.
Nearly 70% of our respondents were female. The higher portion
of females may have influenced our results as females and males
have different behavior patterns with respect to environmental
decisions. For example, a 2019 study showed that females were
less likely to store e-waste in their home than males
(Nowakowski, 2019). Females have also been shown to have a
higher willingness-to-pay for eco-friendly products (Patel et al.,
2017). Although environmental trends are likely to vary by gender,
recent research suggests that the ways in which behaviors differ
are complex (Fern, 2018).
Numerous studies have indicated that education is correlated
with more responsible consumer behavior in terms of e-waste dis-
posal (Milovantseva and Saphores, 2013; Saphores et al., 2006;
Song et al., 2012). However, our study shows that at a major uni-
versity in the U.S., 44.4% of respondents never recycle e-waste
using formal methods. Additionally, 26% of participants reported
throwing e-waste in the trash, while 12% have incorrectly
attempted to recycle e-waste in regular recycling containers, and
43% reported storing e-waste in their home. Storage of e-waste
products is a common but environmentally unfriendly practice
among consumers, with one study estimating up to 75% of per-
sonal computer systems remaining in storage in California for dis-
posal at a later time (Kang and Schoenung, 2006).
Reasons for e-waste storage include a lack of knowledge among
consumers regarding disposal options, such as location of proper
facilities, as well as concerns regarding personal data security
(Estrada-Ayub and Kahhat, 2014; Saphores et al., 2012). Finally,
124 A.L. Arain et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 119–127

100%

Percentage of total participants

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Computer Computer Handheld Televisions Stereo Small Other
accessories devices appliances electronics

Zero 1 to 2 3 to 5 More than 5

100%
Percentage of total participants

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Computer Computer Handheld Televisions Stereo Small Other
accessories devices appliances electronics

Zero 1 to 2 3 to 5 More than 5

Fig. 3. Number of current devices (top graph) and waste electronics (bottom graph) owned by participants.

Table 4
Frequency of replacement of different types of electronics.

Electronic <12 months 12–24 months >24 months Missing

n (%)
Cell Phone 46 (2.9) 379 (24.3) 1129 (72.4) 6 (0.4)
Television 42 (2.7) 37 (2.4) 1417 (90.8) 64 (4.1)
Desktop 45 (2.9) 34 (2.2) 1360 (87.2) 121 (7.8)
Laptop 41 (2.6) 72 (4.6) 1419 (91.0) 28 (1.8)
Computer Accessories 63 (4.0) 184 (11.8) 1236 (79.2) 77 (4.9)

when considering differences among the affiliation categories,
there were mixed results. For example, although faculty members
were more likely to report that it is ‘‘very important” for con-
sumers to properly dispose of unwanted products (Fig. 3), they also
reported lower amounts that they would be willing to pay to recy-
cle various items, despite being overall more willing to pay a fee a
recycling fee (Table 5). Taken together, these results indicate that
attaining a certain level of education alone is not sufficient to
induce e-waste recycling behaviors. Instead, researchers should
focus more on specific consumer e-waste knowledge and beliefs
regarding consumer stewardship responsibilities, as well as lower-
ing the personal cost to recycle. Educational campaigns should
focus on targeting multiple types of stakeholders from all educa-
tional levels.
In consideration of what factors are most important in encour-
aging recycling behavior, our data demonstrate that cost of dis-
posal is by far the most important. This finding is in agreement
with numerous other studies on recycling that report consumer
cost is an important determinant of recycling behavior (Jenkins
et al., 2003; Nixon et al., 2009; Sidique et al., 2010). In our survey,
70% of respondents listed free disposal as ‘‘very important”, while
23% listed free recycling as ‘‘important.” Interestingly, 50% of
 A.L. Arain et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 119–127 125

Table 5
Mean willingness-to-pay ($) reported by participants for four different e-waste products by university affiliation.

Affiliation Faculty Staff Graduate Student Undergraduate Other Total

Student
Willing to Pay a Fee?
Response N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Yes1 56 (54.9) 160 (28.7) 235 (37.7)3 59 (25.1) 15 (35.7) 525 (33.7)
Unsure1 33 (32.4) 166 (29.8) 226 (36.2)3 92 (39.1) 12 (28.6) 529 (33.9)
No1 13 (12.7) 229 (41.1) 159 (25.5)3 84 (35.7) 15 (35.7) 500 (32.1)
Amount Willing to Pay ($)
Electronic N Mean (sd) N Mean(sd) N Mean (sd) N Mean (sd) N Mean (sd) N Mean (sd)
Battery 74 2.5 (2.3) 348 2.9 (3.9) 422 2.8 (4.1) 154 3.8 (6.3) 29 2.2 (2.4) 1027 2.9 (4.3)
Cell phone2 87 6.6 (4.9) 434 6.6 (6.7) 494 8.6 (8.0) 185 9.3 (9.4) 30 7.0 (6.4) 1230 7.8 (7.6)
Laptop2 91 10.9 (8.2) 456 9.7 (7.8) 508 12.7 (10.6) 189 11.9 (10.3) 34 9.7 (7.2) 1278 11.3 (9.5)
3200 Television2 91 12.3 (8.5) 454 11.2 (8.6) 499 13.7 (10.5) 187 13.8 (9.9) 33 10.6 (8.6) 1264 12.6 (9.6)
1
Chi-square test: p < 0.001.
2
One-way ANOVA test: p < 0.001.
3
4 participants missing.

respondents reported being willing to pay a fee, despite the high
importance on having free recycling. While free recycling is clearly
the preferred alternative, half of the sample would be willing to
pay a fee, which emphasizes recognition among the sample of
the importance of proper recycling. Respondents tended to report
a mean willingness to pay commensurate with the size and com-
plexity of the item being recycled, indicating that they expect their
recycling fee to reflect that which is being recycled. For example,
the total study sample reported a mean willingness to pay of
$2.90 for a battery, $7.80 for a cell phone, $11.30 for a laptop,
and $12.60 for a 32” television. Despite faculty having the most
respondents willing to pay a fee, they were among the lower mean
values ($) reported for the willingness to pay for each of the four
products listed. This result is interesting and deserves further
investigation as faculty are more likely able to afford to pay a recy-
cling fee than students or staff due to a higher income. For compar-
ison purposes, one local facility’s fee for formally recycling a
television is $1.00 per diagonal inch. For a 32” television, the mean
reported willingness to pay ($12.60) is less than half of the
required fee ($32.00). Economic incentives to increase recycling,
such as deposit-refund systems or manufacturer, have been found
to be successful interventions to increase recycling behaviors
(Calcott and Walls, 2005; Hong et al., 1999; Iyer and Kashyap,
2007; Viscusi et al., 2020).
Nearly 80% of respondents who reported ‘‘never” recycling e-
waste formally reported that they did not know of any e-waste
recycling services near them. It is interesting that many respon-
dents were not aware of recycling facilities when we consider that
majority of respondents also stated that disposing of waste in a
sustainable manor was ‘‘very important” (Fig. 2). In the community
where the study occurred, there are at least four different perma-
nent locations that accept e-waste, either with or without a fee.
Information on where the locations exist, directions, and instruc-
tions for dropping off e-waste are readily available through the
facility websites. Additionally, the city where the community is
located has additional online resources telling consumers where
they can take different objects for recycling (among several differ-
ent facilities located within the city), along with directions and
hours. This suggests that there may be a motivation issue where
the time and mental expense of learning where and how to dispose
of e-waste properly is greater than the potential benefit for some of
our study population. In the study city, the nearest recycling facil-
ity is approximately 4.5 miles from the main university campus,
and there is a bus line that stops nearby. Although this may be rel-
atively convenient for some people, there is a donation fee and a
relatively high time-cost to recycle goods if public transportation
is needed. The facility is only open certain days and hours of the
week. These results agree with the literature, which suggests that
having convenient facilities is one of the major contributors to
recycling behavior (Kipperberg, 2007; Miafodzyeva and Brandt,
2013; Tonglet et al., 2004). Studies on recycling interventions of
traditional waste materials (i.e., paper) have shown that increasing
access to recycling effectively improves recycling rates on college
campuses and in other settings (Digiacomo et al., 2018; Largo-
wight et al., 2013). Increasing knowledge of the existing recycling
centers is likely not enough to improve recycling behaviors. Rather,
policy-makers in this city should focus on increasing accessibility
to recycling centers through programs such as pick-up services,
e-waste drives, or providing a recycling drop-off center near cam-
pus. Extended producer responsibility programs by higher levels of
government would increase recycling options as well as incentives
without burdening the local city government.
Most respondents (72.4%) reported replacing their cell phone
after 2+ years, while about a quarter of respondents replace their
phone every 1–2 years. These results are consistent with a study
done among Chinese university students, where most students
replaced their phone every 2–3 years, while 22% replaced their
phone annually (Yin et al., 2014). These results are also similar to
those of a study conducted among students at 5 UK universities,
where 66% of students replaced their phone every 2+ years
(Ongondo and Williams, 2011). The rate at which electronics are
replaced becomes increasingly important when considering trends
in electronic consumption. Rapid development of new electronic
equipment, a growing number of global electronics consumers,
and poor electronic repairability all indicate that the rate and
amount of e-waste generated will continue to grow. Short elec-
tronic lifetimes will compound these trends.
Although it has been shown that consumer educational cam-
paigns have limited effectiveness in changing recycling behavior
(Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013), this study also demonstrated that
e-waste educational campaigns should seek to educate consumers
on not only what constitutes e-waste, but also why it is important
to ensure proper recycling. Nearly 85% of our respondents indi-
cated that having an understanding of where and how e-waste is
recycled was important or very important in their decision to recy-
cle e-waste. These results are in agreement with multiple other
studies that have demonstrated that consumer awareness of the
toxic effects of e-waste on human and environmental health, as
well as understanding of recycling advantages and management,
are correlated with consumer willingness to participate in recy-
cling (Nduneseokwu et al., 2017; Saphores et al., 2012). Educating
consumers on the benefits of properly recycling e-waste is
126 A.L. Arain et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 119–127
imperative in improving the number of consumers who are moti-
vated to recycle in this study population, as well as across the
region.
This study had several important limitations. First, participants
were not asked to report highest level of education achieved, mak-
ing it difficult to compare the ‘‘staff” and ‘‘other” affiliation cate-
gories with the remaining categories. Additionally, there may
have been self-selection bias in those responding to the survey
either due to interest in environmental management and/or
because of interest in potentially winning a gift card. Finally, we
were unable to collect survey responses from community members
not associated with the university, thereby limiting our ability to
compare results from a group of highly educated individuals to
those from a more broadly representative sample.
5. Conclusions
This study demonstrated that educational attainment alone is
not sufficient for motivating consumers to properly dispose of e-
waste. Free disposal of e-waste was identified as the most impor-
tant consideration in whether participants choose to recycle e-
waste through formal methods. Creating policies and infrastruc-
ture that allow for convenient and low-cost or free recycling of
e-waste may increase consumer recycling. Increasing consumer
knowledge about e-waste products and hazardous may also be
important in increasing recycling behaviors, however educational
interventions alone are likely not enough to overcome the personal
costs of recycling. Future studies should focus on sufficient incen-
tivization from consumer perspectives. Additionally, studies
should aim to understand differences in socioeconomic predictors
of e-waste recycling behaviors. Policy-makers should focus on the
creation of reduced financial and other incentives to recycle may
increase consumer awareness and motivation to recycle used
electronics.
Funding
This work was supported by the University of Michigan Graham
Sustainability Institute and the University of Michigan MCubed
Program.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.002.
References
Arain, A.L., Neitzel, R.L., 2019. A review of biomarkers used for assessing human
exposure to metals from e-waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 1802.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101802.
Baldé, C.P., Forti, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann, P., 2017. The global e-waste monitor -
2017. Bonn/Geneva/Vienna.
Borthakur, A., Govind, M., 2017. Emerging trends in consumers’ E-waste disposal
behaviour and awareness: a worldwide overview with special focus on India.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117, 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2016.11.011.
Cairns, C.N., 2005. E-waste and the consumer: improving options to reduce, reuse
and recycle. In: Proc. 2005 IEEE Int. Symp. Electron. Environ. 2005, pp. 237–242.
https://doi.org/10.1109/isee.2005.1437033.
Calcott, P., Walls, M., 2005. Waste, recycling, and ‘‘‘Design for Environment”’: roles
for markets and policy instruments. Resour. Energy Econ. 27, 287–305. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2005.02.001.
Digiacomo, A., Wu, D.W., Lenkic, P., Fraser, B., Kingstone, A., Digiacomo, A., Wu, D.
W., Lenkic, P., Fraser, B., 2018. Convenience improves composting and recycling
rates in high-density residential buildings. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 61, 309–331.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1305332.
Echegaray, F., Hansstein, F.V., 2017. Assessing the intention-behavior gap in
electronic waste recycling: the case of Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 180–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.064.
Electronics Takeback Coalition, 2019. State Legislation [WWW Document] accessed
6.28.19 http://www.electronicstakeback.com/promote-good-laws/state-
legislation/, .
Estrada-Ayub, J.A., Kahhat, R., 2014. Decision factors for e-waste in Northern
Mexico: To waste or trade. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 86, 93–106. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.02.012.
Favot, M., Grassetti, L., 2017. E-waste collection in Italy: results from an exploratory
analysis. Waste Manag. 67, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2017.05.026.
Fern, A., 2018. Does gender make a difference in pro-environmental behavior? The
case of the Basque Country University students. J. Clean. Prod. 176. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.079.
Goldenhar, L.M., Connell, C., 1991. Effects of educational and feeback interventions
on recycling knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. J. Environ. Syst. 21,
321–333. https://doi.org/10.2190/0HC1-UGML-97N6-UPFE.
Grant, K., Goldizen, F.C., Sly, P.D., Brune, M.-N., Neira, M., van den Berg, M., Norman,
R.E., 2013. Health consequences of exposure to e-waste: a systematic review.
Lancet Glob. Heal. 1, e350–e361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(13)
70101-3.
Gurauskien, I., 2008. The behaviour of consumers as one of the most important
factors in e-waste problem. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 4, 56–65.
Hong, S., Adams, R.M., Hong, S., Adams, R.M., 1999. Household responses to price
incentives for recycling: some further evidence. Land Econ. 75, 505–514.
Hornik, J., Cherian, J., Madansky, M., 1995. Determinants of recycling behavior: a
synthesis of research results. J. Socio. Econ. 24, 105–127.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 2019. Electronic Waste
[WWW Document] accessed 6.27.19 https://www.in.gov/idem/recycle/2352.
htm, .
Iyer, E.S., Kashyap, R.K., 2007. Consumer recycling: role of incentives, information,
and social class. J. Consum. Behav. 47, 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.
Jenkins, R.R., Martinez, S.A., Palmer, K., Podolsky, M.J., 2003. The determinants of
household recycling : a material-specific analysis of recycling program features
and unit pricing. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 45, 294–318. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00054-2.
Kang, H.Y., Schoenung, J.M., 2006. Economic analysis of electronic waste recycling:
modeling the cost and revenue of a materials recovery facility in California.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1672–1680. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0503783.
Kipperberg, G., 2007. A comparison of household recycling behaviors in Norway and
the United States. Environ. Resour. Econ. 36, 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10640-006-9019-x.
Klockner, C.A., 2013. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental
behaviour — a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 1028–1038. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014.
Largo-wight, E., Johnston, D.D., Wight, J., 2013. The efficacy of a theory-based,
participatory recycling intervention on a college campus. J. Environ. Heal.
Environ. Heal. 76, 26–32.
Lepawsky, J., 2015. The changing geography of global trade in electronic discards:
time to rethink the e-waste problem. Geogr. J. 181, 147–159. https://doi.org/
10.1111/geoj.12077.
Lu, C., Zhang, L., Zhong, Y., Ren, W., Tobias, M., Mu, Z., Ma, Z., Geng, Y., Xue, B., 2014.
An overview of e-waste management in China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.
17, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-014-0256-8.
Lundgren, K., 2012. The Global Impact of e-Waste: Addressing the Challenge.
International Labour Office.
Luo, C., Liu, C., Wang, Y., Liu, X., Li, F., Zhang, G., Li, X., 2011. Heavy metal
contamination in soils and vegetables near an e-waste processing site, south
China. J. Hazard. Mater. 186, 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2010.11.024.
Meneses, A., Palacio, A.B., 2005. Recycling behavior: a multidimensional approach.
Environ. Behav. 37, 837–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505276742.
Miafodzyeva, M., Brandt, N., 2013. Recycling behaviour among householders:
synthesizing determinants via a meta-analysis. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 4, 221–
235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-012-9144-4.
Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy [WWW Document],
2019. URL https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-70153_70155_3585_
4130_18096-208087–,00.html (accessed 6.26.19).
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2016. Michigan Electronic Waste
Program Summary REport.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2013. Michigan E-waste Take-Back
Program summary 2013 [WWW Document] accessed 6.26.19 https://www.
michigan.gov/documents/deq/MI_E-Waste_Take-Back_Program-Summary_
2013_433132_7.pdf, .
Milovantseva, N., Saphores, J.D., 2013. Time bomb or hidden treasure?
Characteristics of junk TVs and of the US households who store them. Waste
Manag. 33, 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.020.
 A.L. Arain et al. / Waste Management 105 (2020) 119–127
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, n.d. Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act
[WWW Document]. URL https://www.pca.state.mn.us/quick-links/minnesota-
electronics-recycling-act (accessed 6.28.19).
Nduneseokwu, C.K., Qu, Y., Appolloni, A., 2017. Factors influencing consumers’
intentions to participate in a formal e-waste collection system: a case study of
Onitsha, Nigeria. Sustain. 9, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060881.
Nixon, H., Saphores, J.-D.M., Oguseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2009. Understanding
preferences for recycling electronic waste in California: the influence of
environmental attitudes and beliefs on willingness to pay. Environ. Behav. 41,
101–124.
Nnorom, I.C., Ohakwe, J., Osibanjo, O., 2009. Survey of willingness of residents to
participate in electronic waste recycling in Nigeria – a case study of mobile
phone recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1629–1637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2009.08.009.
Nowakowski, P., 2019. Investigating the reasons for storage of WEEE by residents –
a potential for removal from households. Waste Manag. 87, 192–203. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.008.
Ongondo, F.O., Williams, I.D., 2011. Greening academia: use and disposal of mobile
phones among university students. Waste Manag. 31, 1617–1634. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.01.031.
Paben, J., 2016. National recycling rate now at 34.6 percent [WWW Document]. URL
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2016/11/15/national-recycling-rate-
now-at-34-6-percent/ (accessed 6.26.19).
Patel, J., Modi, A., Paul, J., Paul, J., 2017. Pro-environmental behavior and socio-
demographic factors in an emerging market. Asian J. Bus. Ethics 6, 189–214.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-016-0071-5.
Resource Recycling Systems, 2016. Measuring recycling in the state of Michigan:
2014 recycling rate. Ann Arbor.
Robinson, B.H., 2009. E-waste: an assessment of global production and
environmental impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 183–191. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.09.044.
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 Manag. 40, 22–30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.005.
Saphores, J.D.M., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2006. Household
willingness to recycle electronic waste: an application to California. Environ.
Behav. 38, 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505279045.
Saphores, J.D.M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2012. Willingness to engage in a
pro-environmental behavior: an analysis of e-waste recycling based on a
national survey of U.S. households. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 60, 49–63. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.12.003.
Schoonmaker, D., Lowen, A., Isely, P., Kneisel, A., Buckler, M., 2016. Economic Impact
Potential and Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in Michigan. Grand
Rapids, MI.
127
Sidique, S.F., Joshi, S.V., Lupi, F., 2010. Factors influencing the rate of recycling: an
analysis of Minnesota counties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 242–249. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.08.006.
Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., 2012. Residents’ behaviors, attitudes, and willingness to pay
for recycling e-waste in Macau. J. Environ. Manage. 106, 8–16. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.036.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative
review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.
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. Recycling 41, 191–214. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001.
US EPA, 2019. Durable goods: Product-specific data [WWW Document]. Facts
Fig. about Mater. Waste Recycl. URL https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-
about-materials-waste-and-recycling/durable-goods-product-specific-
data#Electronics (accessed 6.26.19).
Viscusi, W.K., Huber, J., Bell, J., The, S., Economic, A., Of, P., Viscusi, B.W.K., Huber, J.,
Bell, J., 2020. American Economic Association Promoting Recycling : Private
Values, Social Norms, and Economic Incentives THE One Hundred Twenty Third
Annual Meeting OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC Published by : American
Economic Association Stable URL : https://www.jstor.or. Am. Econ. Rev. 101.
Wang, F., Huisman, J., Meskers, C.E.M., Schluep, M., Stevels, A., Hagelüken, C., 2012.
The Best-of-2-Worlds philosophy: developing local dismantling and global
infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging
economies. Waste Manag. 32, 2134–2146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2012.03.029.
Wang, Z., Guo, D., Wang, X., 2016. Determinants of residents’ e-waste recycling
behaviour intentions: evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 850–860.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.155.
Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., Böni, H., 2005.
Global perspectives on e-waste. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25, 436–458.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.04.001.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2019. E-cycle Wisconsin Program
Information [WWW Document]. URL https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ecycle/
wisconsin.html.
Wong, M.H., Wu, S.C., Deng, W.J., Yu, X.Z., Luo, Q., Leung, A.O.W., Wong, C.S.C.,
Luksemburg, W.J., Wong, A.S., 2007. Export of toxic chemicals - a review of the
case of uncontrolled electronic-waste recycling. Environ. Pollut. 149, 131–140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.01.044.
Yin, J., Gao, Y., Xu, H., 2014. Survey and analysis of consumers’ behaviour of waste
mobile phone recycling in China. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 517–525. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.006.
Zeng, X., Mathews, J.A., Li, J., 2018. Urban mining of E-waste is becoming more cost-
effective than virgin mining. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 4835–4841.