This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University]

On: 13 March 2015, At: 08:53

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Environment: The International

Journal of Justice and Sustainability
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Factors Affecting Take-up of and Drop-

out from Home Composting Schemes
P. Tucker , D. Speirs , S. I. Fletcher , E. Edgerton & J. Mckechnie
Published online: 19 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: P. Tucker , D. Speirs , S. I. Fletcher , E. Edgerton & J. Mckechnie (2003) Factors
Affecting Take-up of and Drop-out from Home Composting Schemes, Local Environment: The
International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 8:3, 245-259, DOI: 10.1080/13549830306660

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830306660

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Local Environment, Vol. 8, No. 3, 245–259, June 2003

ARTICLE

Factors Affecting Take-up of and

Drop-out from Home Composting
Schemes
P. TUCKER, D. SPEIRS, S. I. FLETCHER, E. EDGERTON & J.
MCKECHNIE
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

ABSTRACT This paper reports survey results from Scotland and north-west
England into home composting attitudes and behaviours. The results concentrate
on: the take-up of home composting through promotional campaigns; and the
reasons for drop-out. Motivations for take-up were balanced between environ-
mental and gardening reasons, although capital cost was an important issue for
some. Drop-outs occurred mainly through participants moving house or because
of lack of success in producing compost. Few of those experiencing problems
sought help. Those that did favoured official or professional sources. Neighbour-
hood social pressures to compost were relatively weak. The results are discussed
in terms of the sustainability of home composting behaviour and the manage-
ment interventions that might be required in sustaining that behaviour.

Introduction
Increased composting of organic waste is an important element in national waste
strategies (SEPA, 1999; DETR, 2000). The need is driven by the EU Landfill
Directive which requires that, by 2020 at the latest, the amount of biodegradable
waste going to landfill should be reduced to 35% of 1995 levels. Putrescible
material, which can be composted, makes up around 20% of household waste
(DETR, 1998). With total household waste of 27 million tonnes in 1997/98
(DETR, 2000), this equates to some 5.4 million tonnes of compostable house-
hold waste being produced per annum. Composting this waste not only relieves
pressure on landfills, but also produces a product with intrinsic value as a soil
additive. However, barriers to marketing waste-derived composts are inhibiting
their full take up, though the government, with others, are addressing this issue
(DETR, 2000). Such barriers, however, are of little importance to home com-
posting, where compost is produced for personal use. Many households are
already composting their kitchen and garden waste, and have been doing so for
P. Tucker, D. Speirs & S. I. Fletcher, Environmental Technology Research Group, University of
Paisley, Paisley, PA1 2BE, Scotland, UK. Fax: 0141 848 3229. Email: tuck-ch0@paisley.ac.uk.
E. Edgerton & J. McKechnie, Psychology Unit, Department of Applied Social Sciences, University
of Paisley, Paisley PA1 2BE, Scotland, UK.

1354-9839 Print/1469-6711 Online/03/030245-15  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

DOI: 10.1080/1354983032000098104
 P. Tucker et al.

some time (62% for five years or more; DETR, 1998). That survey found that
just under 30% of households in England and Wales claimed to compost. Many
councils have been strongly promoting home composting over recent years and
recent recruitment is considered to be quite significant in some promotions.
DETR (1998), for example, noted that 11% of composters had started within the
past 12 months, although only 5% started through a council campaign. To date,
most campaigns have been selectively targeted, sometimes on quite small pilot
groups. The potential of wider promotional activities is yet to be realised. Whilst
some professionals consider that increased home composting might only make
a relatively small impact on diverting wastes from landfill (SEPA, 1999), it
nevertheless forms an important element within an integrated sustainable waste
management strategy, through households adopting greater ‘producer responsi-
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

bility’ for their waste, and embodying the ‘proximity principle’ in its most
dramatic sense.
Clearly, there is a stable core of committed composters within the UK, who
have been composting for some time, many of whom forgetting why they ever
started (DETR, 1998). Presumably, most of those can be expected to continue to
compost in the future. Many researchers have found that individual waste
management behaviours, such as recycling, tend to be quite stable (for example,
Pieters,1989; Boldero, 1995) and that prolonged experience can strengthen
intentions and correct any misconceptions (Bagozzi et al., 1992; Dahab et al.,
1995) and strengthen pro-activity attitudes as well (Werner et al., 1995). It has
also been argued that prolonged experience in a scheme may serve to stabilise
behaviours that were originally externally induced (for example, Pallak et al.,
1980; Katzev & Pardini, 1987/88) and that new factors may be internalised as
reasons for adopting that behaviour (Vining et al., 1992). Vining et al. (1992)
also suggest that, in time, participants will tend to simplify their reasons why
they participate, condensing their rationale into a small number of terms.
Surveying the stable long-term composters may, therefore, reveal little about
starting composting.
This paper looks instead at those who have recently started composting,
principally those who have responded to a promotional offer of a free or
subsidised compost bin. It seeks to explore what type of people they are and the
reasons why they responded positively to the offer.
Taking up composting, however, only provides half the picture. If the activity
is to be sustained into the longer term, drop-out needs to be avoided. Question-
ing those who have dropped out will furnish some reasons why drop-out may
occur. DETR (1998) found that 8% of their sample were lapsed composters.
Reasons given for stopping, in order of popularity, were perceiving no use for
the compost, poor health, no space or time, with just 6% or so stopping because
their composting efforts were unsuccessful. The current paper provides indepen-
dent analyses on expressed reasons for drop-out and of the attitudes and
perceptions held by those who dropped out.
The initiation of new recruits and the non-persistence of behaviours (or
drop-out) are the two key components of behavioural change investigated here.
In the context of this study, the former was manipulated by the system provider
through promotional campaigns. The latter occurred ‘naturally’ amongst the
246
 Home Composting Behaviours

populations studied. In many psychological theories, it is considered that

behaviours are anteceded by a combination of attitudes and other factors (for
example, Azjen, 1985; Schwartz, 1977; Guagnano et al., 1995). Previous
research (Taylor & Todd, 1995) has shown that home composting participation
may be particularly well explained by the psychological theory of planned
behaviour (Azjen, 1985). In this theory, it is considered that an intention to
behave is formed according to the strengths of attitudes (positive and negative)
and norms, the facilitating conditions and the self-belief that the behaviour can
be accomplished successfully. This intention is then translated into behaviour if
the facilitating conditions allow. Home composting is a planned household
behaviour that is highly dependent on the facilitating conditions of having a
compost bin, heap or box. In their study, Taylor and Todd (1995) found that
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

normative influences were significant predictors of composting behaviour. How-

ever, whilst it is often conjectured that social pressures, influences or ‘norms’
can help to influence ‘recycling-type’ behaviours (see, for example, Oskamp et
al., 1991; Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Everett & Pierce, 1992; Vining & Ebreo,
1992; Tucker, 1999), results from many studies have remained more equivocal.
Behavioural diffusion through social contacts may be quite weak (Tucker, 1999;
Tucker & Fletcher, 2000). The current paper looks quite broadly at the roles of
these different factors associated with the key behavioural changes in home
composting and focuses the discussion on those issues. Because of space
limitations, it does not dwell too much on other related issues, such as the social
context within which the households are composting, including for example their
gardening habits. Those issues are important and are discussed elsewhere
(Tucker & Speirs, 2001). Gardening interest, gardening activity and garden size
are all highly correlated with home composting behaviour.

Methodology
The research investigation was based on questionnaire surveys of two sample
groups:
(1) Those who had taken a free or subsidised compost bin through a recent
promotional scheme.
(2) Those who did not take up a promotional bin.
Non-takers were simple random samples drawn from the same postcode areas as
those taking up the offer.
The survey was undertaken for communities across three district authorities:
Fylde in north-west England, the village of Blackwood in South Lanarkshire,
Scotland, and the villages of Wemyss Bay, Inverkip, and Kilmacolm, and the
town of Gourock in Inverclyde, Scotland. A fourth sample was drawn from
University of Paisley staff.
In Fylde, 200 householders were targeted with 67 returns received. In
Blackwood, the figures were 228 targeted, 146 obtained; Inverclyde 327
targeted, 199 obtained; and the University of Paisley 94 targeted, 79 obtained.
The samples were purposive selections of 100% of those taking up the offer in
Blackwood, Inverclyde and the University and a random sample of 100 house-
247
 P. Tucker et al.

TABLE 1. Composting experience of promo-

tional bin takers

Already composting or
previously composting

Sample Yes No

Takers 98 (44%) 127 (56%)

holds from the 475 taking a bin in Fylde. Data were obtained by postal survey
in Fylde, whilst all other questionnaires were delivered and collected personally.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

The promotional schemes sampled in the survey had taken place in 1997
(Fylde), 1997 and 1998 (Inverclyde) and spring 1999 (Blackwood and the
University of Paisley). The surveys were undertaken during the summer of 1999.

Take-up
Whilst the majority of those taking up the promotional offers were new
composters, a significant minority of 44% were already composting or had
composted previously (Table 1). Thirty-three per cent of takers were using the
promotional bin in tandem with other facilities. A significant number of
non-takers, also, were composting by other means (Table 2). Thus, whilst the
promotions did reach the intended new markets, there are significant overheads
due to existing practitioners taking advantage as well. The take-up statistics do
not reflect the true marginal increase in participation.
The main reasons for take-up were explored through open questioning (Table
3). The expressed reasons have been categorised as mainly environmental (e),
mainly gardening (g), mainly economic (c) or other (o). The breakdown of those
categorised responses by demographics is given in Tables 4 and 5. University
results were excluded from the demographic analyses because of the atypical
nature of the sample (heavy skewing towards professional classes and the
absence of retired households).

TABLE 2. Current means of composting

Takers

Promotional bin ⫹ Non-takers

Promotional bin other facility Other facility
Community (n ⫽ 158) (n ⫽ 78) (n ⫽ 51)

Blackwood 49 11 10
Fylde 10 12 15
University 24 22 6
Inverclyde 75 33 20

248
 Home Composting Behaviours

TABLE 3. Main reason for getting a compost bin

Total
Reason Blackwood Fylde University Inverclyde (n ⫽ 276)

To use waste (e) 10 2 20 21 53 (19%)

Free/cheap bin (c) 5 7 0 36 48 (17%)
To make compost (g) 7 2 10 13 32 (12%)
To improve soil quality (g) 5 3 9 6 23 (8%)
To help environment (e) 5 1 6 8 20 (7%)
Curiosity (o) 8 0 2 6 16 (6%)
Offered by council (o) 7 1 0 5 13 (5%)
Better than current facility (g) 0 2 1 8 11 (4%)
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

Tidiness (o) 2 1 3 4 10 (4%)

To help council/project (o) 2 2 2 4 10 (4%)
Additional facility (g) 3 0 2 1 6 (2%)
Save dustbin space (o) 3 0 2 1 6 (2%)
Pressure from others (o) 0 1 1 2 4 (1%)
Reduces landfill space (e) 1 1 0 1 3 (1%)
Other (o) 3 2 1 15 21 (8%)

A significant feature of the results is that many respondents couched their

reasoning in terms of the general benefits that would accrue rather than giving
reasons specific to the promotions. General benefits included re-use of waste
(19%), benefits to the garden (20%) and to help the environment. The major
reasons linked specifically to the promotions were cost savings (17%) and that
the council was promoting the scheme or would benefit from take up (9%)
(Table 3). Very few respondents considered that they were responding to
pressures from other sources. Some prior composters admitted to opportunism to
obtain a replacement or additional composting facility.
The proportion of respondents expressing an environmental reason as their
major reason, decreased with age, whilst cost reasons became more prominent
amongst the more mature residents (Table 4). Environmental motivations
showed, at most, weak class dependence, other than for the professional and
managerial group, the majority of whom favoured reasons other than environ-
ment, gardening or cost (Table 5). These trends, however, can only be taken as
indicative, due to the small populations within some categories, and because of
the subjectivities involved in the classification.
Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of a number of factors in
their decision (Table 6). A five-point Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 (no
influence) to 5 (very strong influence). From the reasons offered, the strongest
motivations were to save waste and landfill space. It is noted that re-use also
emerged amongst the strongest main reasons in the open questioning, although
saving landfill space never featured amongst those reasons. Whilst the expla-
nation must remain conjectural, it should be noted that the major reasons
expressed generally focused around the respondent’s own behaviour, either
garden-centred or expressing certain aspects of personal altruism. The ‘feel
249
 P. Tucker et al.

TABLE 4. Major reason for bin take-up by family life-cycle stage (all communities except University)

Major reason

Family life-cycle stage Environment Garden Cost Other

Young adults/no children 4 (80%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%)

Families with younger children 10 (29%) 8 (23%) 6 (17%) 11 (31%)
Families with older children 19 (27%) 19 (27%) 9 (12%) 24 (34%)
More mature, not yet retired 7 (15%) 17 (35%) 8 (17%) 16 (33%)
Retired 12 (17%) 17 (24%) 24 (35%) 17 (24%)

TABLE 5. Major reason for bin take-up by social class (all communities except
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

University)

Major reason

Social class Environment Garden Cost Other

1 4 (17%) 1 (5%) 4 (17%) 14 (61%)

2 22 (29%) 23 (31%) 13 (17%) 17 (23%)
3m, 3n, 4 13 (30%) 7 (16%) 8 (19%) 15 (35%)

good’ factor from saving waste may come to mind more easily in unprompted
questioning than would the analysis of what the longer-term societal benefits of
waste saving could be. The weakest of the offered reasons was that composting
would save money through offsetting the need to buy comparable garden
products.
The strengths of the two prime motivators: ‘gardening’ and ‘the environment’
were explored in more depth in Inverclyde. Respondents were asked which of
the two provided the stronger motivator (Table 7). Most people considered the
reasons to be balanced, although there were significant numbers (15% and 19%

TABLE 6. Strength of influences on taking up composting (all communities)

Strength of influence

1 2 3 4 5 Mean

Curiosity/interest in scheme 35 21 112 46 44 3.17

Cheaper than buying compost 79 30 76 32 50 2.79
Don’t like chemical fertiliser 32 30 71 46 88 3.48
Produce better quality compost 20 39 90 51 65 3.38
Don’t like waste 5 12 44 68 143 4.22
Saves room inside dustbin 52 23 54 48 97 3.42
Saves landfill space 21 17 52 43 139 3.96
Helps council 46 36 67 35 85 3.29

250
 Home Composting Behaviours

TABLE 7. Discrimination between environ-

mental and gardening reasons for bin take-up
in Inverclyde (n ⫽ 107)

Reason for getting bin

Mainly environmental 16 (15%)

Slightly environmental 12 (11%)
Both 48 (45%)
Slightly garden 11 (10%)
Mainly garden 20 (19%)
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

respectively) who favoured one reason much more strongly than the other. This
polarisation was reflected in the relative strengths of influence of possible
motivators (Table 8), with the gardening group more concerned with compost
quality and the environmental group more concerned with saving waste and
landfill space.
In summary, it is hypothesised that the reasons given by many respondents for
taking up the promotional offer may have been internalised, and simplified, into
generalised gardening or environmental reasons. These two motivators appeared
to be reasonably well-balanced amongst the population, although the older
residents tended to favour environmental reasons less strongly than the younger
residents. The reduced cost of the bin was also a specific motivator for some
households, particularly amongst the retired population.
The new commitments to take up a composting bin demonstrate that
significant numbers of the population were amenable to composting and that
home composting participation can be increased markedly through promotions
(although at the expense of subsidising some existing composters as well). The
new recruits might be thought of as ‘latent’ composters who were easily induced
to start through the offer of a bin and the associated (usually weak) promotional
message. It will take far more inducement to attract the non-composters who
turned down the promotion to start.

TABLE 8. Strength of influence versus environmental/gardening motivation in Inverclyde

Mean Likert score

Mainly/slightly Mainly/slightly
Motivation environmental Both gardening

Don’t like chemical fertiliser 3.65 3.52 3.33

Produce better quality compost 3.32 3.43 3.73
Don’t like waste 4.53 4.10 3.96
Saves landfill space 4.61 4.10 3.33

251
 P. Tucker et al.

TABLE 9. Proportions of lapsed composters (all communities)

Currently Previous but Never

Sample composting now lapsed composted

Takers of promotional offer 184 (90%) 13 (6%) 8 (4%)

Non-takers 50 (25%) 37 (19%) 110 (56%)

Drop-out
Before exploring reasons for stopping composting, it is important to establish the
probable scale of the phenomenon. This was established through the paired
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

question “Do you currently compost?” and, if not, “Have you ever composted
previously?” (Table 9). Most of those responding to the promotions were still
composting, with a drop-out rate of just 6% in the 3 months to 2 years following
the promotions. In addition, 4% had never used their promotional bin. Lapsed
behaviours were proportionally higher amongst the non-takers, with 19% claim-
ing to have composted in the past no longer doing so. Overall, over a quarter of
respondents who were not currently composting had composted previously at
some stage in their life. The questioning did not explore how long they had been
composting before dropping out, but did explore the reasons for so doing (Table
10). Two very dominant reasons emerged, which together accounted for over
half the drop-outs. First, many ceased composting when they moved house. The
second reason was that composting was unsuccessful or inefficient. Those
proffering expanded reasons often highlighted ‘sliminess’ as the problem.
Inefficiency was often synonymous with ‘slowness’. Around 5% of the sample
stopped composting because of troubles with flies, vermin or odours, and around
4% or less due to the excessive physical demands of the activity.
The reasons for drop-out were explored from another angle by asking
drop-outs: “What would make you start again?” (Table 11). Of those who had
stopped composting, many look as if they could be encouraged to start again,
mainly by a combination of information and being provided with the facilities
to compost. Less than 20% who responded to this question were adamant that
nothing would make them start again, or were unable to think of any incentive
that would. Those who stopped after moving house tended to express their
answer in terms of the perceived missing facilities of their new residence: that
they needed a bigger garden, or a suitable site in that garden, or that they needed
a new bin. Only three of those who dropped out because of previously
unsuccessful composting attempts answered this question. Two considered that
better information or advice might stimulate them to try again. The other said
nothing would. This question was asked as an open question. It may be that a
null return was also indicative of nothing.
A further investigation of the lapsed composters was undertaken through a
comparative attitude survey between the lapsed composters, the current com-
posters and the totality of current non-composters. Seven statements that could
be indicative of negative attitudes, or barriers, towards composting were posed.
Respondents were asked to score their level of agreement with each statement
252
 Home Composting Behaviours

TABLE 10. Reasons for stopping composting (all communities)

Reason Total

Moved house 19 (29%)

Composting was inefficient/unsuccessful 14 (22%)
Not enough waste 5 (8%)
Not enough time 4 (6%)
Bin blew away/collapsed 3 (5%)
Not good location/lack garden 3 (5%)
Rearranged garden/stopped growing vegetables 2 (3%)
Lack of space 2 (3%)
Flies 1 (1.5%)
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

Messy 1 (1.5%)
Compost bin too small 1 (1.5%)
Heap became overgrown 1 (1.5%)
Too heavy to turn 1 (1.5%)
Safety for kids 1 (1.5%)
Couldn’t get compost out 1 (1.5%)
Laziness 1 (1.5%)
Too much effort 1 (1.5%)
Little use for compost 1 (1.5%)
Rats 1 (1.5%)
Lack knowledge 1 (1.5%)
Smell 1 (1.5%)

Note: Where residents expressed more than one reason, all expressed
reasons have been included with equal weight.

on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).

Significant differences between the groups were then identified by statistical
(chi-squared) tests on contingency tables of the categorised responses. Possible
qualitative differences between the groups were inferred from the mean scores
(Table 12).
The results show highly significant differences between composters and
non-composters for each of the attitudes tested. The mean attitudes held by the
lapsed composters were generally intermediate to those held by the composters
and non-composters, although the perception that composting needs a lot of
waste prompted the highest levels of agreement amongst the drop-outs. There
were no significant differences at the 95% level between lapsed composters and
non-composters with regard to composting requiring a lot of space, attracting
flies or vermin and being unsightly (P-values ⬎ 0.05), although the differences
were significant between the current and the lapsed composters. Generally, the
attitudes of the lapsed composters were more in line with those held by the
non-composters than with those held by the current composters.
A further series of questions looked at the relative strengths of social norms
on composting behaviour. Again responses were recorded on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)—Table 13. The lapsed
composters returned mean scores close to those of the non-composters. Only
253
 P. Tucker et al.

TABLE 11. Incentives that could make lapsed composters start

again (all communities)

Incentive Total

Compost bin (generally free or cheaper) 16 (24%)

More information 11 (17%)
Suitable site/bigger garden 8 (12%)
More time 6 (9%)
Nothing 6 (9%)
Don’t know 4 (6%)
More waste 3 (5%)
Vegetable growing/rearranging garden 3 (5%)
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

Help to turn it 2 (3%)

Coherent argument 2 (3%)
Tax/penalties 2 (3%)
Collection of green waste 1 (1.5%)
Having a garden 1 (1.5%)

around 7–9% of either category believed, even mildly, that their friends or
neighbours thought that they should compost; however, influences towards
composting from within the household appeared stronger. So, whilst the house-
hold norm towards composting may have been relatively strong in some
households, it did not always sustain positive composting behaviours. Other
factors may be dominant in preventing those behaviours.

Composting Problems and Sources of Advice

Other than moving house, most drop-outs resulted from adverse experiences.
The survey included large numbers of relatively inexperienced composters of up
to three years standing, some of whom may be experiencing those same
problems that caused others to drop out. Those composters were asked, through
open questioning, to recount any problems that they were experiencing (Table
14). A follow-up question then explored if and where they sought advice to
overcome those problems (Table 15).
Over 60% stated that they had no problems. The commonest problems were
that progress was much slower than expected, the compost had gone ‘slimy’, and
problems with flies. It is noted that those were also amongst the major problems
given by the lapsed composters as reasons for their drop-out. However, they
often have quite straightforward solutions and can be circumvented with the
right knowledge or with good advice. Overall, 68% of composters felt that they
did not require any help (Table 15). Another 17% had not thought about seeking
advice or did not know where to turn. Just 15% claimed to have sought or taken
advice. The major source of that advice was from local council or professional
sources, including garden centres. A local vermiculture centre in Inverclyde
proved to be the most frequented source of advice for that district. Only 13% of
those with problems turned to friends and family for advice, with only one
254
 Home Composting Behaviours

TABLE 12. Attitude distributions of composters, non-composters and lapsed composters

Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Mean score P-valuea

Composting takes up a lot of time

Comp 2 22 24 113 111 4.14 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 7 21 78 67 18 3.36 L vs C 0.007
Lapsed 1 8 7 21 8 3.60 L vs NC 0.013
Composting takes a lot of effort
Comp 6 20 13 126 106 4.13 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 5 25 69 71 21 3.41 L vs C 0.018
Lapsed 1 6 6 23 9 3.73 L vs NC 0.018
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

Composting demands a high degree of technical knowledge

Comp 3 13 34 113 108 4.14 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 4 14 66 71 37 3.64 L vs C 0.168b
Lapsed 2 2 11 16 15 3.87 L vs NC 0.227b
Composters require a lot of space
Comp 3 16 9 113 129 4.29 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 9 25 41 77 39 3.59 L vs C 0.014b
Lapsed 3 6 3 20 14 3.78 L vs NC 0.099b
Composting is not worthwhile unless there is a lot of waste
Comp 8 21 29 111 94 4.00 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 17 36 54 56 29 3.23 L vs C 0.000
Lapsed 6 13 7 12 8 3.07 L vs NC 0.175
Composting bins attract flies and vermin
Comp 6 53 48 81 85 3.68 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 22 53 62 39 16 2.86 L vs C 0.022
Lapsed 6 12 9 10 7 3.00 L vs NC 0.272
Compost bins are unsightly
Comp 5 28 20 130 89 3.99 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 14 60 49 52 16 2.98 L vs C 0.000
Lapsed 2 16 6 16 6 3.17 L vs NC 0.246

Key:
C ⫽ Current composter, L ⫽ Lapsed composter, NC ⫽ Non-composter. 1 ⫽ Strongly agree,
2 ⫽ Mildly agree, 3 ⫽ Neither agree nor disagree, 4 ⫽ Mildly disagree, 5 ⫽ Strongly disagree.
a
Strongly agree and mildly agree aggregated for the analysis to provide a minimum of 5 counts per
cell wherever possible.
b
1 cell with expected count less than 5.0.

individual obtaining help from neighbours. Just 6% of the sample turned to

published sources of information such as books or leaflets or gleaned the
information from TV programmes. There was a strong marked preference to go
for official or professional advice obtained through personal contact.
This simple breakdown, however, does not reveal the full picture. The
majority of those who sought advice were amongst the group reporting no
composting problems. Perhaps the knowledge they gained helped to prevent
255
 P. Tucker et al.

TABLE 13. Normative influences on composters, non-composters and lapsed composters

1 2 3 4 5 Mean score P-valuea

People in my household think that I should compost

Comp 73 86 55 22 21 2.35 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 9 17 97 29 30 3.30 L vs C 0.005
Lapsed 6 8 16 4 9 3.05 L vs NC 0.033b
My friends think that I should compost
Comp 27 56 123 22 21 2.82 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 3 11 108 25 40 3.47 L vs C 0.002
Lapsed 2 1 26 3 9 3.39 L vs NC 0.785b
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

My neighbours think that I should compost

Comp 26 54 124 19 23 2.83 C vs NC 0.000
Non-comp 3 12 113 22 38 3.43 L vs C 0.009
Lapsed 1 3 27 3 8 3.33 L vs NC 0.755b

C ⫽ Current composter, L ⫽ Lapsed composter, NC ⫽ Non-composter. 1 ⫽ Strongly agree,

2 ⫽ Mildly agree, 3 ⫽ Neither agree nor disagree, 4 ⫽ Mildly disagree, 5 ⫽ Strongly disagree.
a
Strongly agree and mildly agree plus strongly disagree and mildly disagree aggregated for the analysis
to provide a minimum of 5 counts per cell wherever possible.
b
1 cell with expected count less than 5.0.

major problems arising. In contrast, very few of those experiencing the major
problems with compost quality sought advice (Table 15). Indeed, not one person
complaining about slimy compost had taken advice. With more knowledge, such
problems should not occur. The real problem appears to be that many individuals
experiencing problems are not seeking to increase their knowledge and find
solutions.

TABLE 14. Problems composting

Problem Blackwood Fylde University Inverclyde Total

None 54 24 17 81 176
Very slow or no breakdown 2 8 9 19 38 (36%)
Insects 2 2 2 11 17 (16%)
Compost goes slimy 4 1 5 6 16 (15%)
Weed growth in compost 0 0 5 3 8 (8%)
Smells 0 2 1 2 5 (5%)
Lack knowledge 1 0 0 2 3 (3%)
Turning or extracting compost 1 1 0 1 3 (3%)
Vermin 0 2 0 1 3 (3%)
Inadequate site 0 0 2 0 2 (2%)
Worms escaping/dying 0 0 0 2 2 (2%)
Low levels of waste 0 0 0 2 2 (2%)
Bin too small 1 0 0 1 2 (2%)
Other (unstated) 1 0 0 4 5 (5%)

256
 Home Composting Behaviours

TABLE 15. Help available/taken

Problem

Slow Slime Flies Other None All

Help
Not needed 11 6 7 12 134 170
None available/not sought 17 5 3 7 10 42
Advice taken from
Council/professionals 2 0 2 5 11 20
Relatives 0 0 0 0 6 6
Friends/colleagues 0 0 1 0 3 4
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

Neighbours 0 0 0 0 1 1
Books/leaflets/TV 1 0 1 1 2 5
Percentage taking advice 10 0 29 24 14 15

Sustainability of Home Composting

Whilst many households are already composting and have done so for some
time, a substantial number of new composters can be recruited through promo-
tional campaigns. These have been termed ‘latent’ composters. The levels of the
current plus latent composters will ultimately determine the levels of home
composting participation that might be realistically achieved in the population.
Finding this number, which is still effectively unknown for most communities,
will be important for strategic waste planning.
The motivations for composting tended to focus on environmental and
altruistic reasons, or because of benefits to the garden. However, it is also
hypothesised that many of the reasons now given may have been internalised
and simplified in the time since the promotional offers were made (as conjec-
tured by Vining et al., 1992). The actual reasons behind take-up may now be
forgotten. A favourable balance of pro- over anti-activity attitudes (whatever
they happen to be) may already be held by latent composters. Norms could be
of low importance. On the theory of planned behaviour (Azjen, 1985), getting
the facilitating conditions right then becomes the determining behavioural
switch. Simply being offered a compost bin may be a sufficient trigger in itself.
Encouraging new starts is only part of the issue. The sustainability of home
composting schemes will also depend on the level of drop-outs incurred. There
will inevitably be drop-outs for a multitude of reasons. Two major reasons
emerged from the study: moving house; and, unsuccessful experience. The act
of moving house might prompt drop-out simply because the new premises are
(or are perceived to be) not conducive to home composting. Alternatively, it
could be that the prior composting facilities are not transported in the move.
Unsuccessful experience covers common problems such as the composting
process being slower than anticipated, the compost turning slimy or smelly,
attracting flies or vermin, or going weedy. Whilst those problems can be
alleviated with the right advice, those currently admitting such problems gener-
257
 P. Tucker et al.

ally had not sought that advice. Conversely, many of those taking advice now
professed that they now had no problems. Those currently experiencing prob-
lems are potential future drop-outs. Facilitating the right help provision and
getting the people to use it, will be important in sustaining participation,
especially for the relatively inexperienced new recruits.
The proportion of lapsed composters in this survey (12% of those surveyed)
was comparable to the figure of 8% lapsed composters found in the DETR
(1998) survey. The main reasons given for stopping, however, had a different
prominence in the two surveys. Stopping because composting was unsuccessful
caused 22% of the drop-outs in the current survey compared to just 6% in the
DETR survey. Conversely, 22% of the drop-outs in the DETR survey did so
because they perceived no use for the compost, compared to under 2% in the
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

current survey. Poor health accounted for nearly 18% of drop-outs (DETR) but
less that 2% in the current survey. Lack of space (14%, DETR) was often
synonymous with moving to a house with a smaller garden (moving house, 29%;
lack of space 2%—current survey). Whilst two-thirds of the composters in the
DETR survey perceived that nothing could induce them to start again, the
current survey was perhaps a little more encouraging with more of the respon-
dents proffering some ideas on what could induce them to restart. It is not known
why the two surveys should produce these differences, although differences in
sampling methodologies may play a part. The DETR survey was a random
sample of around one out of each 20 000 households from across the whole of
England and Wales. The current survey focused on specific areas with recent
promotions, picked as ‘good composting areas’ and having higher populations of
less experienced composters.
The study showed that lapsed composters may share more similar attitudes (or
perceived barriers) with the non- or never-composters than they do with the
composters. If getting the lapsed composters to start again means shifting their
attitude balance back into favour (see, for example, Guagnano et al., 1995), then
interventions to address some of their negative perceptions may be necessary.
The prime target could be the perception of not having enough waste to warrant
composting.
The study provided mixed results on the possible role of social influences on
home composting behaviours. Current composters appear to have the support
within their household, although their perceptions that their friends and neigh-
bours believe they should compost are more ambivalent. Non-composters per-
ceive significantly weaker pressures from all sources. Very few take-ups
occurred because of social pressures and just one composter out of the whole
sample had turned to a neighbour for advice in problem-solving. The most
popular route for advice was through personal contacts with officials or profes-
sionals. Self-help through reading was poorly favoured.
Overall, the results would point to a proactive management regime of
promotions with official pastoral aftercare in order to achieve and sustain high
levels of home composting. Whilst many non-composting households are
thought to have a latent amenability to undertaking composting, an official
trigger may still be needed to convert that latency into active participation.
Social influences and pressures may not provide sufficient stimuli.
258
 Home Composting Behaviours

Acknowledgement
The home composting survey was funded by the UK Economic and Social
Research Council (ESRC) under the ROPA award scheme, award no.
R022250140.

References
Azjen, I. (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour, in: J. Kuhl & J. F. Beckman (Eds)
Action Control: from cognition to behaviour, pp. 11–39 (New York, Springer Verlag).
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H. & Youjai, Y. (1992) State versus action orientation and the theory of reasoned
action: an application to coupon usage, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, pp. 505–508.
Boldero, J. (1995) The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: the role of attitudes, intentions and
situational factors, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(5), pp. 440–462.
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015

Dahab, D. J., Gentry, J. W. & Su, W. (1995) New ways to reach non-recyclers: an extension of the model of
reasoned action to recycling behaviours, Advanced Consumer Research, 22, pp. 251–256.
DETR (1998) Home Composting in England and Wales (London, DETR).
DETR (2000) Waste Strategy 2000 England and Wales. CM 4693 (London, DETR).
Everett, J. W. & Pierce, J. J. (1992) Social networks, socio-economic status and environmental collective
action: residential curbside block leader recycling, Journal of Environmental Systems, 21(1), pp. 65–84.
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C. & Dietz, T. (1995) Influences on attitude–behavior relationships: a natural
experiment with curbside recycling, Environment and Behavior, 27(5), pp. 699–718.
Hopper, J. R. & Nielsen, J. M. (1991) Recycling as altruistic behavior: normative and behavioural strategies
to expand participation in a community recycling program, Environment and Behavior, 23(2), pp. 195–
220.
Katzev, R. D. & Pardini, A. U. (1987/88) The comparative effectiveness of reward and commitment
approaches in motivating community recycling, Journal of Environmental Systems, 17(2), pp. 93–113.
Oskamp, S., Harrington, M., Edwards, T., Sherwood, P. L., Okuda, S. M.& Swanson, D. L. (1991) Factors
influencing household recycling behavior, Environment and Behavior, 23, pp. 494–519.
Pallak, M., Cook, D. & Sullivan, J. (1980) Commitment and energy conservation, in: L. Bickman (Ed.) Applied
Social Psychology, Annual 1, pp. 235–253 (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications).
Pieters, R. G. M. (1989) Attitudes and Behavior in a Source Separation Program. a garbology approach
(Delft, Eurobon).
Schwartz, S. H. (1977) Normative influences on altruism, in: L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp 221–279 (New York, Academic Press).
SEPA (1999) National Waste Strategy Scotland (Stirling, SEPA).
Taylor, S. & Todd, P. (1995) An integrated model of waste management behavior: a test of household
recycling and composting intentions, Environment and Behavior, 27(5), pp. 603–630.
Tucker, P. (1999) Normative influences in household waste recycling, Journal of Environmental Planning &
Management, 42(1), pp. 63–82.
Tucker, P. & Fletcher, S. I. (2000) Simulating household waste management behaviours part 2: home
composting, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3(3) ⬍ http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/
JASSS/3/3/2.html ⬎
Tucker, P. & Speirs, D. (2001) Understanding Home Composting (Paisley, University of Paisley).
Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (1992) Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes
and changes in recycling opportunities, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(20), pp. 1580–1607.
Vining, J., Linn, L. & Burdge, R. J. (1992) Why recycle? A comparison of recycling motivations in four
communities, Environmental Management, 16, pp. 785–797.
Werner, C. M., Turner, J., Shipman, K., Twitchell, S., Dickson, B. R., Brushke, G. V. & von Bismarck, W.
B. (1995) Commitment, behavior and attitude change: an analysis of voluntary recycling, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 15, pp. 197–208.

259
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 08:53 13 March 2015