Dissertation Public

“I don’t think of myself
as a recycler, I’m just
forced to recycle”:
Exploring the Recycling
Identities of London Residents
SD4299:
Dissertation in Sustainable Development
Name: Saskia James (110001435)
Date: May 2016
Supervisor: Dr Rehema White,
Dept. of Geography and Sustainable Development
University of St Andrews 
MN: 110001435 !1

Acknowledgements
There are a number of people I would like to thank for their help with this dissertation.
Without them, it would have been considerably harder, if not impossible. Firstly, I’d like to
thank my supervisors: Professor Nick Hanley who began the dissertation process with me,
and Dr Rehema White who finished it. Their suggestions were invaluable in both shaping and
fine-tuning the final piece. Secondly, I would like to thank the twenty-two individuals who
participated in the study – who gave their precious time to someone they did not know to
discuss a subject that isn’t always glorious. At this point, I would also like to thank the
numerous family members who hosted me whilst I was collecting this data. Thirdly, I would
like to thank the individuals who have spent hours editing draft after draft of this paper: my
parents, Sara Barnett, and Professor Tim O’Riordan. And lastly, I would like to thank the SD
Class of 2016, who have given me much needed moral support. 
MN: 110001435 "3

Abstract
This study seeks to discover how individuals identify themselves and others in relation
to recycling, and how these identities interact with Local Council recycling initiatives –
particularly compulsory recycling schemes and the provision of recycling facilities. The study
contributes to three broader debates between behavioural psychologists and sociologists;
supporters of regulation and supporters of community mobilisation; and the ethical outlooks
of ecocentrics and anthropocentrics. Data was collected through questionnaires and semi-
structured interviews of twenty-two London residents located across six boroughs, each
hosting its own recycling scheme. Due to the unlimited range of possible identities,
individuals’ recycling identities were categorised according to the attitudes and behaviour
they selected in the questionnaire. Results suggest that recycling identities cannot be
represented as simply Recycler and Non-Recycler. Instead, participants identities tended to
ﬁt into one of six broad categories: Extreme Recyclers, Dedicated Recyclers and Reluctant
Recyclers, and Primed Non-Recyclers, Uninterested Non-Recyclers and Recalcitrant Non-
Recyclers. The additional divisions were the result of Local Council recycling initiatives
determining individuals’ recycling behaviour over and above their recycling attitudes.
Recommendations include employing compulsory recycling schemes only as a last resort
and providing universal ﬁt-for-purpose recycling facilities as a matter of urgency. Ultimately,
this paper forms a part of the wider drive towards sustainable development.
Key Words: recycling, behaviour, practice, identity, difference, stigma, collective action.
MN: 110001435 !4

Table of Contents
List of Figures 7
List of Tables 7
List of Boxes 7
Abbreviations 8
1 Introduction 9
1.1 Objectives and Research Questions 11
1.2 Structure 11
2 Literature Review 13
2.1 Foundations 13
2.2 Identity 14
2.3 Collective Action 16
2.3.1 Regulation for Collective Action (CA) 16
2.3.2 Community Mobilisation for Collective Action (CA) 17
2.4 Difference 18
2.5 Stigma 20
2.6 Section Conclusion 21
3 Methodology 22
3.1 Theoretical Grounding and Positionality 22
3.2 Location Selection 22
3.3 Participant Recruitment 23
3.4 Methods 24
3.5 Limitations 25
4 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Results and Discussion 26
4.1 The Recycler and the Non-Recycler 26
4.2 Dedicated and Extreme Recyclers 29
4.2.1 Dedicated Recyclers (DR) 29
4.2.2 Extreme Recyclers (ER) 31
4.3 Reluctant Recyclers (RR) 32
4.4 Primed Non-Recyclers (PN) 34
MN: 110001435 !5

4.5 Uninterested (UN) and Recalcitrant Non-Recyclers (RN) 36
4.6 Section Conclusion 40
5 General Discussion and Conclusions 41
5.1 Top-Level Research Findings 41
5.2 Wider Connotations of the Study 43
5.3 Final Thoughts 44
6 Reflections on Sustainable Development Research 47
6.1 Defining Sustainable Development 47
6.2 Researching for Sustainable Development 48
6.3 Concluding Reflections 50
Bibliography 51
Appendices 59
MN: 110001435 !6

List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Boxes
Title Page Image Owned
Figure 1.1 The Waste Hierarchy
Figure 2.1 Graphical Representation of Activity Ratings
Figure 2.2 Categories Surrounding Recycling Attitudes and Behaviour
Figure 3.1 Participant Gender
Figure 3.2 Participant Age
Figure 3.3 Participant Type of Residence
Figure 4.1 Six Categories of Recycling Identities
Figure 4.2 Words Used to Describe Extreme Recyclers
Figure 4.3 Words Used to Describe Recalcitrant Non-Recyclers
Table 4.1 Dedicated Recyclers: Frequency of Recycling by Material
Table 5.1 Policy Recommendations
Box 2.1 Deﬁning Identities
Box 2.2 Deﬁning Norms
Box 4.1 A Quote on Recycling Unusual Materials
Box 4.2 A Quote on the Regressive Nature of Extreme Recyclers
Box 4.3 A Quote on the Destination of Recycling
Box 4.4 Quotes on Why One Recycled
Box 4.5 A Conversation with a Primed Non-Recycler on the Stigma Experienced
Box 4.6 A Quote on the Poor Behaviour of Recalcitrant Non-Recyclers
Box 5.1 Six Recycling Identities
MN: 110001435 !7

Abbreviations
CA Collective Action
CAP Collective Action Problems
CRS Compulsory Recycling Schemes
DEFRA Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
DR Dedicated Recyclers
EC European Commission
ER Extreme Recyclers
EU European Union
LB London Borough
LC Local Council(s)
PEB Pro-Environmental Behaviour(s)
PN Primed Non-Recyclers
RN Recalcitrant Non-Recyclers
RR Reluctant Recyclers
SD Sustainable Development
TCD Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
TPB Theory of Planned Behaviour
UN Uninterested Non-Recyclers
UK United Kingdom
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
WfH Waste from Households
MN: 110001435 !8

1 Introduction
Individuals have multiple identities (Stryker & Burke, 2000). These vary across time
and space, are both general and specific, are complex and have significance for our
thoughts, emotions, behaviours and even wider society (Devine-Wright & Clayton, 2010:
267). Together with identity, a number of other variables are seen to determine behaviour.
These include attitudes, norms, materials, conceptions and contexts. Academics are divided
– loosely along psychological and sociological lines – as to which of these should be given
prominence. Historically, psychologically-informed models have held political favour and
shaped government policies for behaviour change in a number of areas (Shove, 2010).
In recent years, growing concerns over climate change and environmental
degradation (IPCC, 2014) have resulted in a number of policies and other efforts to increase
pro-environmental behaviour (PEB): ‘behaviour that has a reduced impact on the
environment’ (Reid et al., 2010: 309). These form part of a broader drive towards sustainable
development (SD), defined most famously in the Brundtland Report as: ‘development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987). Although it has its weaknesses (an example being its
failure to define ‘needs’ (Shove & Walker, 2010)), the definition serves the purposes of this
paper by emphasising the need for action to mitigate humans’ impact on our planet.
Action towards SD can be, and is, taken in many areas, one of which is generated
waste. Waste can come in any state – solid, liquid, gas – and as any material. Though less
substantial than commercial, industrial or construction waste
(DEFRA, 2015), (solid) ‘waste from households’ (WfH) is of1
concern due to the number of people involved and its
potential to escalate exponentially. WfH can be managed in
various ways, often listed in a ‘waste hierarchy’ (see Figure
1.1) which ranks waste management options according to
their environmental impact (DEFRA, 2011).
According to DEFRA (2015) this includes: regular household collection, civic amenity sites, ‘bulky waste’ and1
‘other household waste’. Its chief exclusion is street cleaning/sweeping. Its definition is less broad than than
that of ‘municipal waste’, ’council collected waste’, and even ‘household waste’ - a term used until mid 2014.
MN: 110001435 !9
Figure 1.1
The Waste
Hierarchy
Source:
newenergycorp.com.au

Over the past few decades recycling has grown in popularity. It is particularly current
as the European Commission proposes new recycling targets for 2030 – increasing the
current recycling target of 50% of WfH by 2020 to 65% by 2030 (EC, 2015; EU, 2008).2
Defined as the conversion of waste into reusable material (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016),
recycling avoids taking space in the dwindling number of landfills sites (not to mention the
ever-increasing costs and taxes associated with them; Smallbone, 2005: 111-2). Meanwhile
it reduces the greenhouse gas emissions and permanent loss of resources associated with
landfill and incineration, whilst allowing consumption practices to continue unchecked
(though this in itself is a problem; Strange, 2002). For these reasons, recycling shall, for the
rest of this paper, be assumed to be desirable, and the increased take-up of recycling more
so.
In the UK, Local Councils (LC) are responsible for increasing the uptake of recycling in
their area. A variety of initiatives have been employed to achieve this. Chief among them is
the provision of recycling facilities, giving individuals an easy opportunity to recycle should
they wish to. This could be through household kerbside collections or communal drop-off
sites for multi-household buildings. (Borough-wide recycling centres are considered a
separate initiative). Less well-known are Compulsory Recycling Schemes (CRS) that allow
councils to fine households that consistently fail to recycle. Because of the vital nature of the
former, and the largely unfamiliar nature of the latter, this study shall focus on these initiatives
over others, such as monetary incentives or prompts.
Effectiveness aside, these initiatives raise questions of individual responsibility for
environmental action, and the morality of forcing such action, whilst both highlighting and
hiding various similarities and differences between individual householders with regards to
recycling behaviour. Together, these issues contribute to how individuals perceive themselves
– their recycling identity – and others. To date this area has not been given the attention it
deserves.
The UK WfH recycling rate was 44.9% in 2014, up from 44.1% in 2013 (DEFRA, 2015).2
MN: 110001435 !10

1.1 Objectives and Research Questions
By categorising participants’ recycling identities according to their recycling attitudes
and behaviour, this paper seeks to address the above gap and to illustrate why such
considerations deserve further attention, and even require swift action. In order to achieve
this, this paper will answer the following research question:
How do individual householders identify themselves in relation to recycling and how
do these identities interact with actual Local Council recycling initiatives, with
particular emphasis on compulsory recycling schemes and provision of recycling
facilities?
This will be achieved by addressing three sub-questions together in Section 4. These are:
I) How do individuals create recycling identities for themselves and of what do they
consist?
II) How do individuals’ recycling identities interact with the recycling identities of
others?
III) How do individuals’ recycling identities interact with Local Council recycling
initiatives?
1.2 Structure
This paper is structured as follows:
• Chapter 1 highlights the importance of the issue, and the themes involved. It then
explicitly states the objective and research questions of the study.
• Chapter 2 provides a literature review of the main themes and key arguments in
the ﬁeld, while identifying the niche within which the study will sit.
• Chapter 3 details the methodology used to gather the primary data.
• Chapter 4 presents the ﬁndings, interprets them and places them in their context
within the literature.
MN: 110001435 !11

• Chapter 5 summarises the ﬁndings, touches upon their wider contributions and
presents recommendations for further research and action.
• Chapter 6 reﬂects on the study as a piece of SD research. 
MN: 110001435 !12

2 Literature Review
In Section 1 we saw how the subject of waste ﬁts into the SD agenda. Of all the
means of managing this waste, recycling is, today, most covered by the literature. Focuses
include the logistics that surround recycling (eg. Monnot et al., 2014); its antecedents (eg.
Oom Do Valle et al., 2005); and the empirical effectiveness of various behaviour change
initiatives (eg. Porter et al., 1995; Dai et al., 2015). This literature review will begin by stating
the foundations upon which the study stands and then go on to focus upon key themes
relevant to the later analysis. These are: identity, collective action, difference and stigma.
2.1 Foundations
The majority of literature on pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) reveals realist,
positivist understandings of the environment – namely that the environment is ‘self-evidently
in crisis and, as such, in need of rationally-considered managerial interventions to which, the
approach assumes, it will respond’ (Hargreaves, 2010: 4). Such an assumption is based
upon the ethical assumption that it is morally wrong to degrade the planet, whether for its
own sake (as ecocentrics believe) or for the sake of future generations (as anthropocentrics
believe) (Norton, 1989; Zalta et al., 2015). In order to be able fully to delve into the topic of
recycling, this study shares this assumption, though it did not go unquestioned by the
participants and stands in contrast to the post-structuralist stance taken in the rest of the
paper.
With this assumption, literature on PEB tends to lend itself to either a behaviourist
approach (largely psychologically-informed) or a practice-orientated one (largely
sociologically-informed). Behaviourists, such as Steg & Vlek (2009), emphasise choice and
allocate high individual responsibility for action. Behaviourists best-known model is the
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1985). This uses attitudes, subjective norms and
perceived behavioural control to predict intention and behaviour. The model encourages the
addition of new variables and has been applied multiple times to recycling (eg. Terry et al.
1999; Culiberg, 2014). Criticisms over the degree of sovereignty and responsibility given to
individuals by such models led to more practice-orientated approaches (eg. Shove & Pantzar,
MN: 110001435 !13

2005; Shove, 2010). These positioned individual intentions amongst other deterministic
elements, including material objects, know-how and meaning. This study began from a
behaviourist perspective. However, the data collected encouraged a move towards more
practice-orientated thinking, though elements of the original model remain.
2.2 Identity
As environmental concerns have grown, so have the salience of environmental
identities (Devine-Wright & Clayton, 2010: 267). Northrup (1989: 55) defines identity as ‘an
abiding sense of self and of the relationship of the self to the world’. An environmental
identity might be defined as ‘a sense of identity that transcends the individual and
encompasses one’s position as part of a living eco-system’ (Clayton & Myers, 2015: 168).
Recycling identities remain undefined in the literature but might be said to be a sense of
identity relating to how one sees oneself in relation to the concept of recycling. Identities
come in several forms, two of which are defined in Box 2.1. Stets & Biga (2003: 403)
conceptualise environmental identities as personal identities. Recycling identities have yet to
be conceptualised in this way.
Studied from both psychological perspectives (eg. Mannetti et al., 2004) and
sociological (eg. Stets & Biga, 2003), an individual’s identity will impact upon their intentions
to behave in particular ways. The more specific the identity (eg. environmentalist or recycler)
(Devine-Wright & Clayton, 2010: 268), and the closer that individual’s identity is to that of the
MN: 110001435 !14
Box 2.1 Defining Identities
• Role Identities: ‘the meanings individuals attach to themselves as an occupant of a
role in the social structure, such as being male/female, student, friend, or
worker’ (Stets & Biga, 2003: 403).
• Personal Identities: ‘characteristics or attributes that individuals see as
representing who they are, how they feel, and what they value’ (Stets & Biga, 2003:
403).

‘prototype’ individual they see as performing a particular behaviour (Wright et al., 1992;
Gibbons et al., 1998), the greater their intentions will be to perform in the same way.
Recycling identities may be more salient than identities associated with other PEBs,
and so form a greater part of one’s environmental identity, because recycling is considered
more green and normal than other PEBs (see Figure 2.1; Rettie et al., 2012). Reasons for this
might be the large institutional initiatives that surround it; its high visibility; everyday
application; and largely environmental motivations (Rettie et al., 2012: 438; Jensen, 2008:
358-9). In turn, a high level of symbolism is attached to it, attributing to it higher social credit
than its actual environmental impact might warrant (Jensen, 2008: 358). This ties into
Bourdieu’s Theory on the Economy of Social Goods (1998: 93), which uses gift-giving as an
example. If recycling can be interpreted as a gift to society – after all, in most cases,
individuals are not obliged to recycle and yet their actions are beneﬁcial to society – then to
make explicit the value of this gift (a value most people rationally know) breaks the ‘taboo of
MN: 110001435 !15
Figure 2.1
Graphical Representation of Activity Ratings (Copied from Rettie et al., 2012: 428; circle added)

making things explicit’ (1998: 96). Meanwhile, to give a gift too great – to be over-zealous in
one’s recycling or other PEB – is to be too literal about the agenda, another taboo (Jensen,
2008: 359). Jensen found that many individuals actually make a concerted effort not to be
identified as ‘too’ green (2008: 359). This study hopes to find where individuals place the
bounds of ‘normal’ recycling identities and how they perceive themselves in relation to these.
2.3 Collective Action
Recycling is a collective action (CA), one of many in the environmental field (Dawes,
1980). According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: ‘collective action occurs when a number
of people work together to achieve some common objective’ (Dowding, 2016). A collective
action problem (CAP) occurs when circumstances discourage individuals from pursuing this
objective. Broadly speaking, these circumstances relate to the ethical concepts of selfishness
and altruism. Warnock (1971: 21-2) also includes a lack of information, intelligence or
sympathy. Recycling’s objective is to contribute to a stable climate and resource
sustainability. However, recycling requires effort and its objective is complex, long-term and
subtle (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Czajkowski et al., 2014). The ‘selfish’ individual (acting only
in their own economically rational self-interest) will not recycle – although they’ll ‘free-ride’ on
the efforts of those who do. However, should everyone recycle – altruistically pursuing the
collective interest – the final result is more favourable for all.
How such CAPs might be resolved is contested. The two sides of the argument are
fleshed out below.
2.3.1 Regulation for Collective Action (CA)
Hardin’s (1968) ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ describes the ecological collapse which
follows multiple individuals allowed to pursue their own self-interest in a shared but limited
resource. For both Hardin (1968) and Olson (1965) – the first to write on the subject – this
was inevitable. The solution was strict regulation, often of property rights. Such solutions
might be considered ‘top-down’ approaches to governance.
MN: 110001435 !16

De Young (1988: 349) used Hardin’s (1968: 1246) principle of ‘mutual coercion,
mutually agreed upon’ to argue that the coercive power of norms could be used to
encourage recycling (Abbot et al., 2014 reinforce the sentiment). This paper applies the
principle to compulsory recycling schemes (CRS) for the first time. First introduced in Barnet
in 2004, CRS operate under Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) and allow
councils to fine households that persistently fail to recycle. Literature on the schemes is
largely designed for council consultation prior to scheme implementation (eg. Croydon
Council, 2012; Environment Committee, 2011A; LB. of Waltham Forest, 2007). Insights,
however, can be gleaned from investigations into compulsion elsewhere. Chorlton & Conner
(2012), for example, found that forced compliance surrounding speeding produced short-
term, but not long-term, change. In contrast, Dahab et al. (1995: 252-4), who wrote on
recycling but not compulsion, suggested that trial behaviour could lead to long-term
behavioural change as individuals discovered that recycling was easy and received positive
social feedback.
Particularly important for the study of forced compliance is Festinger’s Theory of
Cognitive Dissonance (TCD; 1957; with Carlsmith, 1959). This describes the cognitive
discomfort felt by individuals whose attitudes or beliefs do not match their behaviour. In order
to reduce the discomfort, individuals will either change their attitudes, beliefs or behaviour;
reduce the importance they place on them; or seek new information denying the
inconsistency. The theory, however, fails to account for individual differences in dissonance
perception, toleration and reduction (Aronson, 1969: 26). This makes identifying dissonance
difficult.
2.3.2 Community Mobilisation for Collective Action (CA)
An alternative to regulation of CA is community mobilisation – suggesting more
‘bottom-up’ approaches to governance. Ostrom (1990) found numerous examples of
common-pool resources sustainably managed by individuals working together without
regulation. Norms (defined in some of its forms in Box 2.2) play a vital role in this. Individuals
possessing high norms surrounding trust – labelled ‘conditional cooperators’ by Ostrom
MN: 110001435 !17

(2000) – are thought to initiate CA. This is sustained as long as ‘a sufﬁcient proportion’ of
others reciprocate (Ostrom, 2000: 142). Meanwhile, another group, ‘willing punishers’ (who
may or may not also be conditional cooperators) harshly rebuke those who are seen to
under-contribute to the collective interest (142). Together, these groups provide the
framework upon which CA builds (142).
A number of contextual variables serve to help or hinder the uptake of CA (cf. Baland
& Plateau 1996; Ostrom, 2000; Wade, 1988). That the World’s population is required to
recycle is a hindrance. That there is strong leadership presence surrounding it is a help. The
provision of recycling facilities is an example of this leadership and was found by both
Derksen & Gartrell (1993) and Thomas & Sharp (2013) to increase recycling rates. Whether a
society-level social norm to recycle has been established is debatable. Most assert that while
it may be a norm for some, it may not be for others (Thomas & Sharp, 2013; Nolan, 2015).
2.4 Difference
Whilst discussing the normativeness of recycling, Nolan (2015: 849) writes: ‘recycling
is not a dichotomous activity’. He means that individuals are not either recyclers or non-
MN: 110001435 !18
Box 2.2 Deﬁning Norms
• Social Norms: ‘shared understanding about actions that are obligatory, permitted,
or forbidden’ (Ostrom, 2000: 143-4).
• Personal Norms: ‘an individual’s personal standards of behaviour’ (Smallbone,
2005: 117).
• Subjective Norms: ‘the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the
behavior’ (Ajzen, 1991: 188).
• Injunctive Norms: ‘the individual perception of what other people think should be
done in a certain context or situation’ (Fornara et al., 2011: 624).
• Descriptive Norms: ‘the individual perception of what the majority of others actually
do in that context or situation’ (Fornara et al., 2011: 624).

recyclers but simply individuals who confront a decision to recycle on every occasion. The
result is a spectrum of recycling behaviour. This is a relatively new and liberated way of
thinking but also has its limitations – particularly concerning individuals’ self-identify and
councils’ need to target further recycling initiatives. In fact, to an extent, categorisation might
be considered natural and so should not go ignored.
According to Lévi-Strauss (1972), it is natural for humans to identify and classify the
world around them through language. How this is done is arbitrary – although an internal
logic is likely, it is not necessarily shared, or even understood, by others (Saïd, 1978: 53-4).
For structuralists, it follows that the world is socially constructed and so there is no ‘true’
meaning. Instead, meaning is created with reference to difference, creating dichotomies:
oppositional concepts which endlessly help to determine the meaning of one another (Khoja-
Moolji, 2014: 278). For post-structuralists, this meaning endlessly fluctuates as ‘power’ (see
Foucault, 1980) serves to reclassify, rehierarchise and recreate knowledge (Haralambos &
Holborn, 2000: 914; Hargreaves, 2010: 6-7). An individual’s identity is equally recreated in
this way.
In the recycling arena, the dichotomy runs along behavioural lines, pitting recycler
against non-recycler. Like most dichotomies, it is largely unproblematised in wider society. It
was because of this that early efforts to increase recycling (and other PEB) in the UK tended
to focus on mass education campaigns, such as ‘Helping
the Earth Begins At Home’ (Hinchliffe, 1996). It was
assumed that those individuals not recycling only needed
more information before adjusting their behaviour
appropriately (Hargreaves, 2010: 4). Not only did such
schemes fail to realise that significant other barriers to
action existed, but that there were significant variations in
the population at hand. More recently, methods
developed using insights from social marketing. These
sought to divide the population into categories, matching
each to the initiative thought best able to encourage them
to act pro-environmentally (4). DEFRA’s (2008) efforts are
MN: 110001435 !19
Reluctant
Recycler
A ✗ B ✓
Primed
Non-
Recycler
A ✓ B ✗
Uninterested
Non-
Recycler
A ✗ B ✗
A - Attitudes to Recycling
B - Recycling Behaviour
✓ - Positive/Present
✗ - Negative/Absent
Figure 2.2
Categories Surrounding Recycling
Attitudes and Behaviour
(Adapted from De Young, 1988)
Key
Dedicated
Recycler
A ✓ B ✓

most famous in this regard, dividing the population into seven segments according to a
number of attitudes and beliefs. Nolan (2015), Lansana (1992) and Vining & Ebro (1990)
focused their investigations on recycling, although these ultimately served only to reinforce
the recycler/non-recycler dichotomy. It was De Young’s (1988) work that provided greatest
inspiration for this study. Plotting individuals’ attitudes toward recycling against their
behaviour, he divided the population into four categories (see Figure 2.2 ). Critical to this3
study, De Young’s framework allows that an individual might recycle whilst holding negative
attitudes towards recycling, and vice versa (see the categories ‘Reluctant Recycler and
Primed Non-Recycler). Adopting and extending this framework allows this study to account
for differences in the population whilst keeping it simple enough for application.
2.5 Stigma
Relevant to the literature on both CA and Difference is the concept of stigma. This is
defined by Goffman, a leading academic on the subject, as: ‘the situation of the individual
who is disqualified from full social acceptance’ (1968: 9). Applicable to this study is the
stigma surrounding age, class, and housing (‘problem places’ often used as short-hand for
‘problem people’ (Johnston & Mooney, 2007)). Recycling, however, also has a stigma of its
own. With a growing environmental agenda (with recycling at its forefront) and a continuing
public belief in the recycler/non-recycler dichotomy, non-recyclers are now stigmatised for
failing to contribute to CA. This is on the grounds of what Goffman terms ‘blemishes of
individual character’ (1968: 14).
Whilst the literature has not yet been applied to recycling, as it has housing, Link &
Phelan’s model of stigmatisation illustrates the process more generally. First the behavioural
difference, here a failure to recycle, is labeled. It is then linked to (usually adverse)
stereotypes. Next, individuals carrying this label are ‘othered’: separating ‘them’ from ‘us’.
Finally, the stigmatised suffer status loss and even discrimination (2001: 368-71). This could
reinforce material difficulties, challenge relationships and add emotional strain. Individuals
might react by submitting – hiding their behaviour or elaborating micro-differences – or
Category names given in Figure 2.1 are inspired by De Young (2015) but not given by him.3
MN: 110001435 !20

resisting (Wacquant et al., 2014: 1277; Slater & Anderson, 2012: 539). For Betton et al.,
social media and the internet provide a novel means of resisting stigma through education,
contact and protest (2015: 443). However, individuals may also be overwhelmed by the
surfeit of information and fall back to stigmatising stereotypes (Haghighat, 2001: 207-8).
Whilst stigmatisation can boost the self-esteem of the stigmatisers (207), it is all too easy for
circumstances to change and the stigmatisers to become the stigmatised (Goffman, 1968:
13).
For ease of reference and clarification in the rest of this paper, recycler and non-
recycler (without capitals) will be used to refer to individuals’ behaviour for descriptive
purposes alone. Meanwhile, Recycler and Non-Recycler (with capitals) will include the
stereotypes that such behaviours now engender. The exception to this is when Recycler and
Non-Recycler are prefixed by a category name, ‘Dedicated Recycler’ for example.
2.6 Section Conclusion
Whilst the themes of identity, collective action, difference and stigma have all, here,
been applied to recycling, they can similarly be applied elsewhere. For example, within the
field of SD, one might discuss the symbolism of cars and the stigma surrounding public
transportation. Or, outside of the field of SD, one might discuss the morality of the regulation
surrounding smoking and the multiple reasons why one might smoke all the same.
Recycling, then, might be considered simply a case study.
MN: 110001435 !21

3 Methodology
This study’s research questions changed significantly between proposal and final
write-up. Initially, the study aimed to investigate how compulsory recycling schemes (CRS)
interacted with the components of Ajzen’s (1985) Theory of Planned Behaviour. However, on
completion of data collection and commencement of analysis using NVivo’s qualitative
analysis software, the results encouraged a change in focus. This was facilitated by the
partially-exploratory nature of the initial study, and the depth of information achieved as a
result of the qualitative method. The outcome was that data collected on the new focus area
was provided unprompted by participants – lending assurance to its unbiased nature.
3.1 Theoretical Grounding and Positionality
This study was based upon a post-structuralist epistemology and ontology. Whilst
post-structuralists believe there is a world ‘out there’, they also believe that no discourse will
ever be able to ‘properly’ interpret it. Meaning, then, is historical, incomplete, and therefore
relative. As seen in Section 2.4, meaning is also as much constituted by negativity as
positivity (Daly, 2008: 59). In relation to this study, perception is key; multiple, even
contradictory, experiences are valid; and ‘difference' is of primary concern.
Considering such a stance, a positional statement is essential. I am a young female
living in privately-rented accommodation. This has significance because of the types of
stigma advanced by survey participants – perhaps resulting in some participants curbing
comments on such individuals like myself (though many were forthcoming). More importantly,
I am a student reading Sustainable Development and have, and can be expected to have,
strong green values. This could have impacted the beliefs and behaviours participants were
willing to share. And lastly of relevance, I am a researcher – suggesting a degree of personal
impartiality to participants (the significance of this will be seen in Section 4.3). Care was taken
to minimise the effect of these positions where possible.
3.2 Location Selection
MN: 110001435 !22

London was chosen as the wider location of this study (as it stood on CRS at the
time) on the basis of convenience. Several different recycling schemes operated in close
proximity and a number included CRS in their portfolio. Using ArcGIS mapping software, six
boroughs were chosen: three with CRS – their initiation spread across time to explore the
impact of this variable – and three without (see Appendix 3). Those without CRS were
chosen on the basis of their demographic similarities to those with CRS. Based on findings
by the London Assembly’s Environment Committee (2011A: 28; 2011B: 10), the
demographic variables chosen were the average deprivation score (DCLG, 2010 ), the4
proportion of flats/maisonettes/apartments (GLA, 2014B) and the population density (GLA,
2014A). The final selection of boroughs was Barnet, Brent and Islington, all with CRS, and
Sutton, Lewisham and Southwark, all without CRS.
3.3 Participant Recruitment
Sampling was purposive – its theoretical grounding lending the study a degree of
generalisability (Silverman, 2000: 104-5). Individuals were screened by borough, age (over
18) and housing type (flats are excluded from CRS). Housing type was later removed from
the screening process as comments by early participants on the imagined differences
between themselves and flat-dwellers were taken on board and deemed necessary to
explore. Towards the end of data collection, a final screen was added to target individuals not
recycling as, to that point, every participant had, thus excluding alternative attitudes and
behaviours from the study.
In order to engage a wide range of individuals, a variety of recruitment methods were
employed. These began with pamphleting (one recruit), advertisements (no recruits), door-
knocking (four recruits), and email contact through social clubs and churches (three recruits).
When these methods proved insufficient, further recruits were secured through requests
posted on community social media sites (unexpectedly sparking further discussion of
recycling in one case and securing eight recruits in total) and by snow-balling through friends,
The most up-to-date data on Indices of Deprivation (2015) was not released until after data collection was4
finished.
MN: 110001435 !23

family and participants already recruited (six recruits). Ultimately, twenty-two individuals took
part in the study. Key participant demographics can be seen in Figures 3.1 to 3.3.
3.4 Methods
Though qualitatively focused, this study in fact employed mixed methods. Participants
completed a questionnaire (see Appendix 4) followed immediately by a recorded, semi-
structured interview lasting between thirty minutes and one hour (see Appendix 5). The
questionnaire was designed to explore the components of the Theory of Planned Behaviour
(TPB) as they relate to recycling and the attitudes of individuals towards CRS. The interview
was divided in two. The ﬁrst section loosely followed six questions surrounding the
relationships between the components of the TPB and CRS. The second section asked
participants to comment on a diagram they were shown (see Appendix 5), echoing questions
made in the ﬁrst part of the interview. This structure allowed participants to make untainted
comments on the subject before they were asked to comment on a pre-prepared structure
which might have skewed their responses.
Emphasis was placed upon the qualitative method as a result of my own post-
structuralist beliefs. I felt it important to know what people had to say, but also how they said
it (as suggested by Graham, 2005: 30), and the emotions with which they did so (as
MN: 110001435 !24
Gender
68%
32%
Male Female
Age
5%
9%
23%
23%
27%
5%
9%
18-24 25-34 35-44
45-54 55-64 65-74
75+
Type of Residence
45%
55%
House Flat
Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3

suggested by Pillow, 2003: 191). Qualitative methods are also advocated by Grounded
Theorists on the basis of ﬂexibility. As recommended by the method of analysis, with each
interview informal analysis was done, allowing for further probing of later participants in areas
still requiring attention (Charmaz, 2006: 187-8; O’Reilly, 2008).
3.5 Limitations
The very quantity of the literature on PEB, and even just recycling, precludes a
comprehensive study of it. For the purposes of this study, recycling refers to to the
disposition of solid waste from households, ignoring, for example, the purchase behaviour of
recycled products (see Dahab, 1995). With regards to council recycling initiatives, this study
will relate to them only in as far as they are seen to impact upon individuals’ recycling
identities, ignoring, for example their empirical effectiveness. The study’s greatest limitation is
its small sample size. Nonetheless, it serves as an important pilot on subject and allows
some provisional conclusions to be drawn.
MN: 110001435 !25

4 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Results and Discussion
Results and Discussion
With growing concerns over the environment, ever more voices call for drastic action
to be taken on its behalf. Recycling is one such action and often occupies a large part of
individuals’ green identities. How identities are created around recycling, of what they
consist, and how they interact with other people’s identities have practical consequences
beyond the realm of recycling. This chapter will argue that participants’ recycling identities go
beyond the dual identities implied by the recycler/non-recycler dichotomy. Instead, their
identities are better divided into six categories – although the participants themselves did not
visualise all six. Each person was only able to identify a small number which, together, came
to create the whole. Overall, the categories were quite loosely separated and seen as
relatively transitory. This line of argument will be expanded on with reference to the data.

4.1 The Recycler and the Non-Recycler
All but one of the study’s twenty-two participants felt that it was important to act
environmentally, often citing the dire consequences of not doing so. The individual that didn’t
agree with this, didn’t because she believe there was a problem in the ﬁrst place, not
because she didn’t believe in the importance of solving the problem. This is the only example
of a participant questioning the study’s assumption that the environment is self-evidently in
crisis (Hargreaves, 2010). Meanwhile, echoing the literature on pro-environmental behaviour
(PEB), every participant agreed that recycling was a means, even the means, for an individual
to contribute to addressing the wider environmental problem (accepting that there was a
problem). It is therefore perhaps not a surprise that some participants (ﬁve) considered
recycling a civic duty. One said, unprompted:
“I think it’s a public, civic duty, like not parking in a way that obstructs other people's
doors.”
Female, Dedicated Recycler, Islington
MN: 110001435 !26

Similarly, others discussed recycling in terms of ‘doing one’s bit’ (five), ‘doing the right
thing’ (six) or ‘doing good’ (fifteen). Such sentiments reflect three things. Firstly, they suggest
that, in contrast to Stets & Biga's (2003) belief that environmental identities are personal
identities, more specific recycling identities may be both personal and role identities (the role
being ‘citizen’). Secondly, they show participants’ conceptualisation of recycling as a
collective action (CA). And lastly, they imply that, to fail to play the citizen, to contribute to the
CA, is remiss, wrong or bad. For some participants, to recycle was not only to do good, but
to be good. One jokingly came to the self-realisation:
“Wow, I’m actually a really good and worthy person!”
Male, Dedicated Recycler, Sutton
Whilst the explicit nature of the comment was uncommon (just two), this could be due to
humility more than anything else. However, such candour was not uncommon when
extending a failure to recycle to being a bad person.
The finding that one half of the dichotomy (recyclers) is seen as superior to the other
(non-recyclers), together with the extension of such labels into stereotypes, is a classic
finding in the literature on stigma and difference (eg. Saïd, 1978). However, such processes
posed an identity crisis for those in the study whose attitudes were at a dissonance with their
behaviour (see Festinger, 1957) – either because they recycled but didn’t believe in it, or
didn’t recycle but did believe in it. The result is a fundamental split in the Recycler and Non-
Recycler identities often assumed to exist.
Individuals’ (recycling) identities can take a limitless number of forms. In order to allow
for key differences, as seen by the participants themselves, to be elucidated whilst retaining
applicability, participants’ recycling identities were divided into six broad categories according
to the attitudes and behaviour self-reported in their questionnaire. Figure 4.1 shows these
categories in a framework with pro-recycling attitudes on the left, anti-recycling attitudes on
the right; recycling behaviour on top, and non-recycling behaviour on the bottom. Appendix
6 shows the calculations used to allocate participants to each category. Briefly, means were
calculated for the frequency with which participants recycled various materials. A participant
was considered to recycle if their mean was more than or equal to half of the maximum value
MN: 110001435 !27

(four). The same was done with participants’ attitudes towards recycling. Attitudes were
considered positive if, again, their mean was more than or equal to half of the maximum
value (ﬁve). These allocations were then cross-checked with behaviour and attitudes
described in their interviews, though, in fact, no changes were made.
The study’s framework began with the four categories posed by De Young (1988) and
seen in Figure 2.3. These are:
• ‘Dedicated Recyclers’ (DR) who
recycle and hold pro-recycling
attitudes (Section 4.2).
• ‘Reluctant Recyclers’ (RR) who
recycle but hold anti-recycling
attitudes (Section 4.3)
• ‘Primed Non-Recyclers’ (PN)
who do not recycle but hold
pro-recycling attitudes (Section
4.4).
• ‘Uninterested Non-Recyclers’ (UN) who do not recycle and hold anti-recycling
attitudes (Section 4.5).
In addition, this study identiﬁed two more categories:
• ‘Extreme Recyclers’ (ER) who live strict green lifestyles, of which recycling is only a
part, a hold strong pro-recycling and pro-environment attitudes (Section 4.2).
• ‘Recalcitrant Non-Recyclers’ (RN) who, on top of not recycling, tend to behave in an
uncivil manner and care little for anything, recycling included (Section 4.5).
These categories will be expanded upon in the sub-sections below.
MN: 110001435 !28
Extreme
Recycler
A ✓ ✓
B ✓ ✓
A ✗ ✗
B ✗ ✗
Recalcitrant
Non-Recycler
Dedicated
Recycler
A ✓ B ✓
Reluctant
Recycler
A ✗ B ✓
Primed
Non-
Recycler
A ✓ B ✗
Uninterested
Non-Recycler
A ✗ B ✗
Key
A - Attitudes to Recycling ✓ - Positive/Present
B - Recycling Behaviour ✗ - Negative/Absent
Figure 4.1
Six Categories of Recycling Identities
(Adapted from De Young, 1988)

4.2 Dedicated and Extreme Recyclers
In order to understand ER, one must ﬁrst understand DR.
4.2.1 Dedicated Recyclers (DR)
18 of 22 of the participants’ recycling identities were placed into the DR category. All
of these individuals recycled and all held positive attitudes towards recycling – though the
reality is more complex than these statements suggest. In terms of recycling behaviour,
emphasis was placed by DR in this study on
recycling those materials (glass, paper, tins
etc.) collected by the council from their
properties. More unusual items such as
batteries were less commonly recycled (see
Table 4.1). Comments such as that seen in Box
4.1 would suggest that ease of recycling and
frequency of use play a large part in this. It is
also possible that a degree of symbolism plays
a part – as it does in promoting recycling over
other PEBs (see Jensen, 2008). In this way,
recycling kerbside materials would indicate an
individual’s desire to recycle, to do one’s part, without the need for them to recycle
everything. No proof of this was found but it’s also unlikely to be something of which
individuals are conscious.
The study’s DR held positive attitudes towards recycling as an environmental good, a
behaviour and a response to council initiatives (all were varyingly referred to as simply
attitudes towards recycling). Nonetheless, some signiﬁcant concerns were highlighted,
mostly surrounding the participant’s uncertainty over what could actually be recycled and the
destination of materials once collected. In fact, sixteen of eighteen DR mentioned the latter a
MN: 110001435 !29
Table 4.1 Dedicated Recyclers: Frequency of
Recycling by Material
Recycling
Frequency
Glass Paper Tins Batteries
All of the
Time
15 16 14 8
Most of
the Time
3 2 4 2
Some of
the Time
0 0 0 4
Hardly
Ever
0 0 0 1
Never 0 0 0 3
Total 18 18 18 18

total of fifty-three times: twelve went so far as to state (thirty-five times) real suspicions that it
was not recycled. How these participants retained pro-recycling attitudes whilst harbouring
such concerns requires attention. Three explanations are suggested. Firstly, participants were
suspicious but not certain that materials collected were not actually ultimately being recycled.
It may be that accepting that they were not authorities on the subject allowed them to
subdue such suspicions. The second explanation is based upon the fact that the concerns
often arose as participants could not conceive how commingled recycling was later
separated for processing. That this opaqueness was often pitted against the ease with which
commingled recycling could be done, may have allowed the former to be ignored in favour of
the latter. And finally, the idea that ‘doing one’s bit’ with regard to recycling seemed to stretch
only so far as putting one’s materials out for collection (see Jensen, 2008) may have allowed
participants some detachment from concerns focused beyond this point. Most likely it was a
combination of all three.
DR perceive themselves, and their recycling identities, as ‘normal’. Whilst a majority in
this study, they also expected such a trend to continue outside the bounds of the sample.
However, these participants were very aware that such a state of affairs was both (relatively)
new and quite precarious – their doubts surrounding the destination of recycling being an
example of this. Many felt that improved education on the processes of recycling, and even
feedback on their recycling efforts, was urgently required should authorities wish them to
build on their efforts. Such initiatives could ensure the transformation of recycling from a
slightly haphazard practice, done almost thoughtlessly in response to circumstance (see
MN: 110001435 !30
Box 4.1 A Quote on Recycling Unusual Materials
“You know, I fastidiously keep all my batteries and they pile up, and I think: ‘oh, for
fuck’s sake, I don't know what to do with these batteries’. You know, I don't know
where they go. You know, it's not part of my daily routine to pass somewhere that
recycles batteries. And then you find that you've amalgamated all the old batteries with
the new batteries and you don't know which is which [screeching]! [Laughs] And, you
know, so I'm now rambling, but I mean those are the only...battery recycling is the only
minor issue I have with recycling. I would love for them to do kerbside battery recycling.”
Female, Dedicated Recycler, Islington

Shove & Pantzar, 2005), to a more entrenched, planned behaviour, able to withstand
inevitable bumps to the system (see Ajzen, 1985). The latter links nicely with the position held
by ER.
4.2.2 Extreme Recyclers (ER)
Although no participant’s recycling identity was placed into the ER category, the types
of individuals that would ﬁt in to this category were often described by DR and allow some
conclusions to be drawn. Like DR, ER recycle and hold pro-recycling attitudes. However,
important differences remain. Prominence will be given to behavioural differences because of
the interesting themes they touch upon.
Whilst the recycling of DR was skewed in favour of kerbside-collected materials, ER
were thought to place equal emphasis on all materials. In fact, whilst seen to be the early
adopters of recycling (though not conditional cooperators (Ostrom, 1990) as they are thought
to care little for reciprocation), recycling now represents the face of an entirely green lifestyle,
one where women are thought to “go around in skirts made out of tea-towels” (Female,
Dedicated Recycler, Barnet). More words and phrases used to describe ER can be seen in
Figure 4.2. Most damning appeared to be ER’s seeming lack of connection with the ‘realities’
of the twenty-ﬁrst century –
Box 4.2 shows one individual’s
take on this. The antipathy this
comment reveals is not
u n c o m m o n w h e n
anthropocentrics (likely all DR
in this study) discuss the
(ethical) beliefs and practices of
ecocentrics (likely where DR
would place ER) (see Norton,
1989). Ultimately, this could be said to be because ER are deemed guilty of breaking the
taboo of being too literal about the agenda (see Jensen, 2008). Strong language, citing
ulterior motives and adding provisos like “I care about the environment, not in an obsessive
MN: 110001435 !31
Figure 4.2 Words Used to Describe Extreme
Recyclers

green way but…” (Female, Dedicated Recycler,
Barnet) highlight the concerted efforts of DR to
distance themselves from more extreme greens.
This replicates Jensen’s (2008) findings.
Fortunately, although relations with ER may have
served as a means to justify the recycling
behaviour of DR, it did not appear to determine it.
It is impossible to conclude from the
study’s data whether individuals that hold the
characteristics of ER exist in reality. What this
study can conclude is that the idea of ER plays a
crucial role in helping DR to define their own recycling identities. The idea of ER also serves
to shield DR from the stigma they might have suffered should recycling have remained the
prerogative of the ‘alternative’ or the ‘extreme’. And so Voltaire’s (1768) aphorism can be
slightly adjusted to state: if ER did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them.
4.3 Reluctant Recyclers (RR)
Recycling identities that fit into the RR category certainly exist, although many might
not expect them. RR are likely to experience Cognitive Dissonance (see Festinger, 1957):
recycling but holding negative attitudes towards it. Just one participant’s identity was placed
into this category. For her, recycling was not ‘good’ because recycling was not necessary,
the environmental crisis being only a fabrication. In fact, recycling was bad: wasting
individual’s time when the failure of so many worldwide to do the same made their efforts
redundant. Even worse, what was ‘recycled’ simply created profits for companies who were
thought to dump the materials in developing countries when people’s backs were turned.
Box 4.3 shows a quote along such lines.
Despite these beliefs, this participant recycled. She did so because she felt forced to
by the CRS in her area – a fact she stated thirteen times, two of which can be seen in Box
MN: 110001435 !32
Box 4.2 A Quote on the Regressive
Nature of Extreme Recyclers
“There is a faction of eco-nutters, if I
may call them that, who would say
we've all got to stop flying. Sorry, it’s
the 21st century! It ain't going to
happen! What you've got to do is be
more efficient in the way that you do
that.”
Male, Dedicated Recycler, Sutton

4.4. However, ironically, the participant began to recycle before CRS was, in fact, in place –
made to believe by her neighbour that this was already the case. Her comment following this
suggests a further reason for her behaviour. She said:
“She [her neighbour] was putting cans in one bin, and as I, you know, didn’t want to
stay behind, I put them in there as well.”
Female, Reluctant Recycler, Brent
Clearly, it’s important for her to adhere to social norms, of which recycling is one. This is
especially surprising because she does not believe in the importance of the objectives of this
norm. And yet the strength of this reality was later afﬁrmed when the participant stated that
she was not sure whether, should CRS end, she would cease to recycle.
Not only did the RR recycle, but she was, in fact, one of the top recyclers5
interviewed. This included materials covered by
her kerbside scheme as well as some more
uncommon materials such as furniture and
batteries that were not covered under her CRS.
Three things could explain why an individual
proclaiming to recycle only under duress would do
this. Firstly, the participant appeared more
conscious of the exercise than most – quick to
mention the time, steps and knowledge required
to recycle. This is likely because the dissonance between her attitudes and behaviour painted
the whole exercise as abnormal in her eyes. The result may have been that to recycle
Calculated by scoring the frequency with which individuals reported recycling 13 different materials.5
MN: 110001435 !33
Box 4.4 Quotes on Why One
Recycled
“I don't think of myself as a
recycler. I'm just forced to recycle.”
“I am recycling. Not because I'm a
believer, because I have to.”
Box 4.3 A Quote on the Destination of Recycling
“If, just say, theoretically, it costs to store that waste £1 a day in India, and it costs £45
to store it in England or America, plus some bad stuff may come out of it, why would
you do that? You would go where it's cheaper, right? It's all ruled by money. That's why
I hate it.”

uncommon materials required little more cognitive effort than already invested. Secondly,
identifying herself as separate to DR may have made her unaware that the norms
surrounding recycling do not prescribe that one recycle everything (see Jensen, 2008). Lastly,
some comments suggest that when the participant stated that she ‘recycled’ clothes and
furniture, what she actually meant was that she was sending them for reuse. And whilst she
did not claim to care for the environment, she did claim to care for people for whom such
actions would help.
Relating to other categories, the RR did not appear to fully differentiate between DR
and ER – deeming them all slightly over-zealous and very judgemental. As she said:
“These tree huggers are going to come and take my head.”
At the same time, her behaviour marked her as different from non-recyclers – not ‘bad’
people in her mind, but individuals acting according to the beliefs they were quite at liberty to
hold. The result was a sense of isolation – suspecting that others like her felt too repressed to
speak up. Interestingly, it was my position as researcher, rather than my ecological beliefs,
that were of greatest importance to her – perhaps giving comfort with the guarantee that I
would listen but not judge.
If the position of DR was precarious, the position of RR was even more so, putting
into question the sustainability of CRS. On the one hand, the individual took up recycling. On
the other, the longevity of such behaviour remained in doubt eight years after the scheme
was introduced. Furthermore, the individual was somewhat cognitively uncomfortable (See
Festinger, 1957) and socially isolated – a situation the council had put her in. Such a situation
raises questions of the morality of putting environmental well-being over individuals’ social
and personal well-being.
4.4 Primed Non-Recyclers (PN)
MN: 110001435 !34

Whilst one participant’s identity fits into the RR category, three fit into the PN category.
It is likely that these individuals also experience some cognitive discomfort (see Festinger,
1957): not recycling whilst holding positive attitudes towards it. Some qualification is needed.
Whilst it’s true that these individuals did not recycle household waste on a daily basis, it’s not
true that they put everything into landfill. Clothes and magazines were often passed along for
reuse and bulky items taken to the local tip or recycling centre. Potentially the irregular nature
of such behaviour, and the non-environmental motivations behind them, led these
participants to discount them (see Jensen, 2008).
The question, then, is why do PN not recycle on a regular basis? All three participants’
explanations revolved around their housing: rented from a local authority or Housing
Association. One participant stated that her estate did not provide recycling facilities; another
that she was provided bags but nowhere to put them; and the last that, although two bins
were provided, no differentiation was made between them. It is important to note that,
although these individuals perceived an inability to recycle, this was not necessarily a strict
reality. For example, participants could have taken materials to local recycling centres. Such
perceptions could stem from comparisons made between their own provision and the
provision of individual bins for those in, what they termed, ‘normal’ houses. The finding that
council estate housing is, by implication, not ‘normal’ is a common finding in the literature on
territorial (housing) stigmatisation (eg. Johnston & Mooney, 2007). If, by association, the
recycling provision for council estates was considered abnormal, then a perceived inability to
recycling under current circumstances becomes less surprising.
Nevertheless, PN do not recycle under ‘normal’ definitions of the behaviour and thus
suffer stigmatisation because of it. Box 4.5 gives a longer transcription of one participant’s
thoughts on the subject. The conversation raises a number of interesting points. Firstly, the
participant is torn between her not recycling being a choice and a reaction. This might be an
example of Cognitive Dissonance reduction in action (see Festinger, 1957). On the one hand,
she does not recycle and so assumes that her pro-recycling attitudes are either of little
importance or non-existent. On the other hand, she would like to recycle but feels unable to
as a result of poor provision. Another interesting finding is that blame is placed on both the
Housing Association and the council – who, in labelling Sutton a ‘green borough’, encourage
MN: 110001435 !35

the stigmatisation of those seen not to be contributing, whilst failing to ensure that everyone
is actually able to contribute. Lastly, touched upon briefly in Box 4.5 but evidenced
elsewhere, is the finding that, even as these participants are stigmatised, they stigmatise
those around them. They emphasise their neighbours’ poor behaviour – regarding waste or
otherwise – and assume themselves alone in their positive attitudes. These individuals, then,
are not resisting the stigma, but distancing themselves from the (supposedly justifiably)
stigmatised others (see Wacquant et al., 2014). They hide their behaviour and elaborate the
differences they see between themselves and these others.
PN in this study emphasised that they did not need CRS or monetary incentives to be
encouraged to recycle, they simply needed the means. Unless action is taken to remedy this
soon, then it could be that the forces of cognitive dissonance wear down these individuals’
desire to recycle in the first place. Perhaps ironically, Sutton’s claim to be a ‘green’ borough
could slow this process down in the borough’s PN by reminding them that their behaviour is
not a choice but a reaction. Attitudes aside, without facilities, these individuals will suffer
(arguably unfair) stigmatisation, and so damage to their social standing, as a result of their
failure to recycle. Provision here would contribute to personal, social and environmental well-
being.
4.5 Uninterested (UN) and Recalcitrant Non-Recyclers (RN)
If PN can distance themselves from the stigma of not recycling by emphasising their
positive attitudes to it, UN and RN cannot. Perhaps because of this stigma, no individuals
came forward whose recycling identities might have been placed into these categories.
Nonetheless, like ER, some insights on these categories can be drawn from the comments
of others on those expected to fall into such categories.
The difference between UN and RN is a subtle one and largely depends on a non-
recycler’s connection to the individual discussing them (despite PNRs’ efforts to distance
themselves, they are usually assumed by others to fall into either the UN or RN category). UN
are individuals who do not recycle and do not hold pro-recycling attitudes but are, for all
MN: 110001435 !36

MN: 110001435 !37
Box 4.5 A Conversation with a Primed Non-Recycler on the Stigma Experienced
“Interviewer: Do you feel stigmatised?
Participant: I do a bit. Because I wrote you one message on Facebook that said I don’t
recycle and then I amended it [some text excluded] and just wrote ‘message me’.
Because even though I don't do it, and I am not bothered by not doing it, because we
are such a green borough and Sutton recycles, to actually admit to not recycling…
Interviewer: Even though it is not your fault?
Participant: But people don't realise that! If you read that page on Facebook - people
don't realise that we have not got the facilities. We don't get the bins like what I call
normal households do. [Some text excluded] I changed my message because I did feel
I will get some backlash from people who are more environmentally aware than I am.
Interviewer: And does that bother you?
Participant: Yeah. I don't see why I should have to defend myself. It's my choice to
make. Again, going back to action and consequence, it’s my choice to make this action
and therefore I will suffer the consequences. But in this instance, it is not my fault, and I
feel I have to defend myself, when I should not have to, because there will be
people… In the same way that people should not have to defend their religion. That is
their choice. It’s the same thing. I will own up and say I did change my post. I think it
does not help as well living in this particular borough. I don’t know if they still have them
but there used to be signs: 'Welcome to Sutton: A Green Borough’. I think that is all
part of the stigma if you don't do your bit. As much as I am complaining about my
neighbours, people would be complaining about me, because I am not doing my bit. I
then have to explain that my Housing Association does not give me the facilities. Why
should I have to explain myself? Do you see what I’m saying? I don’t know. I don’t
know.”
Female, Primed Non-Recycler, Sutton

other intents and purposes, upstanding citizens. They could be said to have simply ‘lost their
way’ on this matter. Non-recyclers placed into this group tend to be known others (friends or
family). As everyone is unknown to someone, at some point, every non-recycler will be
classified as a RN. And the failure of RN to recycle, or feel positively about recycling, is seen
to represent a deeper tendency towards ‘uncivil’ attitudes and behaviour (see Johnston &
Mooney, 2007 for similar findings in the housing arena). Box 4.6 illustrates the assumptions
of just one participant.
Some words and phrases used by participants to describe RN can be seen in Figure
4.3. Clearly, like PN, RN are stigmatised. ‘Lazy’ and ‘uncaring’ were the most common
adjectives used (mentioned thirty-four times by seventeen individuals and thirty-seven times
time fourteen individuals respectively), but harsher terms such as ‘sociopathic’ were also
used. The credibility of such labels is undermined by the care shown by the study’s RR (who,
but for CRS, would likely be categorised as a RN). As she put it when responding to
questions on the New Environmental Paradigm (part of the questionnaire; see Dunlap et al.,
2000):
“You can see clearly someone really loves the Earth and wants people like me to say:
‘Oh, do you know what? I don't agree with you. Let's go and pollute it. Let's go and
dump everything everywhere we can and then just think about the consequences
afterwards.’ But that’s not true.”
Nonetheless, Figure 4.3 shows another intriguing finding. The terms ‘young’,
‘working-class’, and ‘council estate resident’ were used more than once to describe RN.
Clearly layers of stigmatisation exist. Individuals suffering the stigmatisation of age, or class,
MN: 110001435 !38
Box 4.6 A Quote on the Poor Behaviour of Recalcitrant Non-Recyclers
“I know other people that have dogs who are really not interested in recycling, or they
don’t care if their dog messes on the pavement. I definitely think that it’s a state of mind
when you think about the environment and the other stuff. Some people just, you know,
don’t care.”
Female, Dedicated Recycler, Brent

or housing are assumed to portray other
characteristics, like not recycling, which
in themselves are stigmatised. Such
stigmatisation is not helped by the very
real material consequences that any
stigma can hold (see Slater & Anderson,
2012). For example, poor provision of
recycling facilities, that may have been
remedied elsewhere, often go unchecked
in stigmatised council estates, and so the
residents do not recycle and the
stereotypes are ‘confirmed’.
As a result, initiatives like (strictly enforced) CRS come to be seen as viable solutions
by DR (fifteen DR in this study agreed). One participant even believed that with recycling
would come greater societal improvement. As she put it:
“If they were seen doing that [not recycling], and it was compulsory to recycle, then
they would get fined, and maybe the area that we live in would be a friendlier and
tidier place.”
Female, Primed Non-Recycler, Southwark
And yet the long-term efficacy of such schemes (not to mention their morality) is in doubt. It
is true that the study’s RR recycles today because of CRS, and would consider continuing
without it. However, the participant also claimed to have undergone no attitudinal
transformation as a result of being forced to recycle. And so it becomes a question of
degree: are attitudes or norms more important in determining her behaviour? The only way to
know for sure is to see what happens should CRS cease. That said, a majority of DR (fifteen)
doubted that some individuals would respond to CRS in the first place, although this has as
much to do with questions of council efficacy as others’ characters.
Again, like ER, it’s impossible for this study to confirm whether RN actually exist or
whether they are simply the stereotypical attributes DR and PN seek to avoid. Regardless, it’s
MN: 110001435 !39
Figure 4.3 Words Used to Describe
Recalcitrant Non-Recyclers

true to say that some non-recyclers suffer stigma for their actions. And again, like PN, the
social debasement of such individuals must be weighed by councils against the
environmental good increased recycling is likely to bring and the resources that would be
required to achieve this.
4.6 Section Conclusion
Comments made by participants in this study suggest six different categories of
recycling identities, divided along attitudinal and behavioural lines. There are the DR who
recycle and feel positively about recycling. These are contrasted with the ER for whom
recycling is just a small part of a much wider green lifestyle. Then there are the RR who
recycle but do so under duress. These individuals contrast with PN who do not recycle but
would like to if given appropriate facilities to do so. Meanwhile, both DR and PN distance
themselves from UN and RN who neither recycle nor want to. For the latter, a failure to
recycle represents much broader ‘uncivilised’ behaviour. Wider conclusions on the
importance of these ﬁndings can be found in the following section.
MN: 110001435 !40

5 General Discussion and Conclusions
This study set out to explore how individuals identify themselves, and others, in
relation to recycling, and how these identities interacted with respective Local Council (LC)
recycling initiatives. The study used a mixed-methods approach, with an emphasis on semi-
structured interviews, to collect data from twenty-two London residents across six boroughs.
The existing literature on pro-environmental behaviour, recycling included, suggests
that academics are torn between more psychological (Steg & Vlek, 2009) and more
sociological (Shove, 2010) approaches. This has impacts upon the kind of initiatives used to
encourage such behaviour – encouragement deemed necessary when, as with any collective
action problem, self-interested rationale discourages participation. On the one hand, authors
such as Hardin (1968) and Olson (1965) advocate regulation in response. Compulsory
Recycling Schemes (CRS) are an example of such regulation. On the other hand, Ostrom
(1990) noted that, in many cases, communities mobilise themselves towards action,
especially when given a sense of leadership, as with the council provision of recycling
facilities. However, the literature does not discuss the effects that such recycling initiatives are
likely to have on the recycling identities of those impacted. This study hoped to fill this gap.
5.1 Top-Level Research Findings
The main empirical findings were laid out in Section 4, where all three sub-research
questions were addressed together. Below are the top-level findings for each.
The first sub-research question asked how individuals create recycling identities and
of what they consist. Participants tended to identify themselves and others according to their
recycling attitudes and behaviour, the latter of which, following behaviourist assumptions,
was assumed to be in consonance with the former. Such descriptions were then conflated
by stereotypes: recyclers were good, non-recyclers, bad. These identities were resisted by
participants suffering Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957): either recycling but holding
anti-recycling attitudes, or not recycling but holding pro-recycling attitudes. These individuals
felt their recycling identities were misconstrued by others and resented the stigma or
MN: 110001435 !41

repression that resulted. Instead, a framework of six separate but fluid recycling identities
seemed to better represent the participants’ lived realities. These can be seen summarised in
Box 5.1. Recognising such identities would accommodate a degree of diversity whilst
remaining simple enough to be applicable.
The second sub-research question asked how individuals’ recycling identities
interacted with the recycling identities of others. The study was limited by its inability to
establish whether ER and RN actually exist as individuals’ identities. The alternative is that
they are merely constructed representations employed by individuals to emphasise how they
do not see themselves, and so, following the dichotomising process, refining the definition of
how they do see themselves. Whilst both such identities were mentioned by all participants
in one way or another, RR and PN tended to go unrecognised by those not identifying
themselves in this way. This likely stems back to assumptions of consonance between
attitudes and behaviour.
The third sub-research question asked how individuals’ recycling identities interacted
with LC recycling initiatives. Most important in this regard is the finding that two of the
recycling identities are the direct result of such initiatives. RR are the result of CRS and PN
are the result of inadequate provision of recycling facilities. Without such circumstances, it’s
possible that RR would not recycle, making them, at best, UN, and PN would recycle,
making them DR. It is possible, then, that without such circumstances, participants may
MN: 110001435 !42
Box 5.1 Six Recycling Identities
• Extreme Recyclers who live strict green lifestyle of which recycling is only a part.
• Dedicated Recyclers who recycle and hold pro-recycling attitudes.
• Reluctant Recyclers who recycle but hold anti-recycling attitudes.
• Primed Non-Recyclers who do not recycle but hold pro-recycling attitudes.
• Uninterested Non-Recyclers who do not recycle and hold anti-recycling
attitudes.
• Recalcitrant Non-Recyclers who’s failure to recycle is just another example of
their largely uncivilised behaviour.

have identified more closely with the dichotomous identities of Recycler and Non-Recycler.
As well as generating new recycling identities, LC initiatives also served to implicitly
encourage the stigmatisation of such identities – ‘punishing’ those not behaving as desired
and preventing others from escaping the stigma that already surrounds a failure to recycle.
That said, LC do not hold sovereignty over such identities, as they stem also in part from
other variables such as norms and physical ability.
5.2 Wider Connotations of the Study
More widely, this study touches upon a number of themes and debates relevant
outside of the recycling arena. Three will be expanded upon briefly below.
The first debate touched upon is that between psychology and sociology. There is a
quote in Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005) that says: “It’s not who you are
underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.” Similar quotes are repeated elsewhere. From
an academic point of view, such a statement reflects behaviourist (psychological)
assumptions (eg. Steg & Vlek, 2009) – allocating high individual sovereignty, and so
responsibility. Though this study began with such assumptions, it now stands, with practice
(sociological) theorists (eg. Shove, 2010), at odds with them. For the participants in this
study, it was not what they did that defined them. They felt, after all, that their actions were
not fully determined by them. Instead, it was their attitudes that defined them, and which,
together with their behaviour, they saw as identifying them. And yet, there remains a strong
sense of responsibility to ‘do one’s bit’ – even if only to be seen to be doing so by others.
This likely has strong grounding in the status of recycling, and other pro-environmental
behaviours, as collective actions towards SD.
This second debate touched upon is between regulation and community mobilisation
(eg. Hardin, 1968 vs. Ostrom, 1990). There is no doubt that a significant proportion of the
UK’s population recycles without the need for regulation, regardless of the effort it requires.
The same goes for putting litter in a bin or standing up for a pregnant woman on a bus. Such
behaviour is regarded as ‘civic’ – a norm – and to regulate it, some might say, is to
MN: 110001435 "43

undermine it. And yet, the added quality – environmental protection, human health or human
safety – that surrounds some behaviours – recycling, smoking, driving – lend them to
regulation to ensure wider adherence. The question then becomes, where does one draw
the line between voluntary and compulsory application? Results in this paper suggest that, at
least for the majority of the participants, compulsory recycling is acceptable. The effort
recyclers contribute is too great, and the (imagined environmental) risks are too high, to allow
some not to participate, whilst the social and cognitive discomfort such regulation might
entail is either unimagined, deemed necessary, or felt deserved.
The last debate touched upon is that of ecocentrics versus anthropocentrics. Whether
aware of it or not, when the study’s DR lauded their contribution to SD whilst scorning the
more extreme efforts they imagined of ER, they were in fact expressing, in microcosm, the
antagonistic relations often found between ecocentrics and anthropocentrics (see Norton,
1989). Whilst ecocentrics might claim to hold the moral high ground, others see them as
dogmatists and dreamers. Meanwhile, whilst anthropocentrics might claim to be realistic in
their ambitions, one might discard their efforts as sellouts or greenwashing. And yet, at the
end of the day, both want to see an increase in the uptake of recycling and the hostility
between them only serves to undermine their cause.
5.3 Final Thoughts
Whilst this study makes a number of contributions, many areas touched upon still
require further attention. Primarily these surrounded the conﬁrmation (or otherwise) of the
existence of individuals holding the ER and RN identities; the empirical investigation of the
long-term effectiveness of CRS; and the exploration of the effect that the perception of
‘normal’ recycling facilities has on the (under-)use of simply ‘adequate’ recycling facilities.
Nonetheless, some preliminary policy recommendations can be made. These can be seen in
Table 5.1.
Overall, this study is one piece in a wider drive towards SD generally. It highlights the
importance of recycling in a sustainable society and looks at how individuals perceive such
MN: 110001435 !44

sustainability in their everyday lives. It critiques current efforts to encourage such
sustainability, and questions whose place it is to do this. Studies like this will always be
necessary to ensure that society is and does follow the best possible path to the best
possible reality for everyone, and perhaps everything.  
MN: 110001435 !45

Table 5.1 Policy Recommendations
Summarised Research Result Policy Recommendation
Recycling attitudes and behaviour are not
always in consonance with one another.
Take both recycling attitudes and
behaviours into account when designing
recycling initiatives. Enabling all those with
pro-recycling attitudes to recycle could
quickly help to increase boroughs’ recycling
rates.
Some individuals feel unable to recycle given
the sub-par status of their recycling facilities.
Not recycling could lead individuals to falsely
assume they do not want to recycle.
Urgently ensure universal provision of ﬁt-for-
purpose recycling facilities. These will help
to ensure positive attitudes towards
recycling continue to build.
Individuals across the board harbour doubts
that materials collected are, in fact, ultimately
recycled.
Increase the distribution of information on
recycling processes (eg. through the local
press). This will increase the resilience of
individuals’ recycling attitudes and so
behaviour, should circumstances change.
Even Dedicated Recyclers remain unsure as
to whether they are recycling everything that
can be recycled and excluding those
materials not able to be recycled.
Provide feedback on recycling efforts. This
could help to reduce contamination of
recycled materials whilst increasing the
amount of materials recycled by those
already recycling.
Individuals who do not hold pro-recycling
attitudes still feel some compulsion to recycle
on normative grounds.
Encourage the conceptualisation of
recycling as ‘normal’, even civil, as well as
green.
Compulsory recycling schemes do result in
an uptake of recycling behaviour but can
also cause cognitive discomfort and social
isolation.
Consider the expansion of compulsory
recycling schemes only as a last resort.
MN: 110001435 !46

6 Reflections on Sustainable Development Research
This paper is the final piece in my undergraduate degree in Sustainable Development
(SD). So this section will first investigate what SD means to me, and then explore what
makes this paper a piece of distinctly SD research.

6.1 Defining Sustainable Development
If asked to define SD in my first few weeks as a student, I would have quoted, like
many others I imagine, the Brundtland Report. This states that: ‘Sustainable Development is
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987). The definition seemed adequate. It was
brief and yet illustrated a strong desire for all-round improvement. Its wide usage gave me
hope that people really cared, about each other and the environment.
Four years later, I am far more critical in my analysis. What, for example, are ‘needs’?
Are comfort or cleanliness needs or simply norms, as Shove and Walker (2010) suggest?
And what is ‘development’? Is it economic growth, economic development, or some
definition of development outside the bounds of economics? The answer is that nobody
agrees, and so each individual or organisation can interpret it however they wish. Sadly, too
often this results in what has been termed ‘greenwash’: a pretence of environmental concern
used only for the purposes of advancing the current (ungreen) agenda (Hibbert, 2009).
It is also interesting to explore what the Brundtland definition does not declare. Where,
for example, do non-human elements sit in the definition? The answer is, perhaps, nowhere
unless necessary for the fulfilment of human needs. Such is the anthropocentric nature of the
definition that nature has value only in as far as humans give it value (as oppose to the
ecocentric belief that nature has intrinsic value). And yet, even from just a human
perspective, the definition is domineering. Who, for example, gets to decide what is
sustained and how (see Banerjee, 2003)?
MN: 110001435 !47

In the face of such criticism, one might turn to alternative definitions of SD, of which
there are many (see Pezzey, 1989; Pearce et al., 1989; Mitlin, 1992). And yet arguably, it was
the Brundtland definition’s ambiguity that helped ensure its popularity; and its popularity that
helped promote action, locally and globally, towards both environmental protection and
human development (the scope and effectiveness of these actions aside) (Imran et al., 2014;
Symons & Karlsson, 2015).
Though it would have come as a surprise to me at the beginning of my degree,
‘green’ thinking does not begin and end with the concept of SD. The Green Movement is
united in its belief that there are environmental problems that need solutions. They might be
described as ‘forward’ to non-greens’ ‘backward’, as some political parties are ‘left’ to
others ‘right’. Nevertheless, green thinkers are divided over how society should ultimately
look (their emphasis), and how this look might be achieved (their commitment). The answers
to such questions depend upon the environmental ethic of the individual: how they see
humans’ relationship with nature (two perspectives, ecocentric and anthropocentric, have
already been touched upon).
This broader ‘green’ thinking impacted upon the initial designed of the study. To some
extent extending the forward/backward, left/right analogies, I wanted to know whether a
strict(er) sustainability agenda (tending towards the forward axis) could be forced (tending
towards the left axis) if the political will was there. The question reflects an ecocentric, maybe
even Survivalist, perspective. Survivalists place environmental concern over human
emancipation, and so often advocate for centrally-planned, authoritarian states (Eckersley,
1992). Though I do not agree with the blatant disregard for human life that some Survivalists,
such as Garrett Hardin (1915-2003), seemed to hold, I felt it an interesting exercise to probe
the connections between political bent and environmental well-being. Compulsory Recycling
Schemes proved an interesting case study in this regard and determined the paper’s
recycling focus. Unfortunately, the answer to my initial query remains elusive as the data I
then collected inspired a new line of investigation.
6.2 Researching for Sustainable Development
MN: 110001435 !48

Sustainable Development (SD) is a concept that encourages the study of, among
other things, pro-environmental ways of living. However, inherent within the SD concept are
also prescriptions about how one should go about research on it. Particularly relevant to this
study is its focus on interdisciplinarity, multiple knowledges and action research. To take each
in turn.
Interdisciplinarity pushes academics to go beyond their own disciplinary boundaries
and integrate concepts, theories and methods from all bodies of knowledge (Schoolman et
al., 2012: 67). In this way, the full body of human knowledge and understanding might be
brought to bear on ‘wicked’ social and environmental problems. Due to the subject matter of
this dissertation, I primarily drew upon the disciplines of psychology, sociology, and
geography. In fact, uncovering the controversies between the fields of behavioural
psychology and sociology proved key to understanding the full complexity, both in terms of
efficacy and morality, that surrounds behaviour change initiatives. For the first time, I fully
understood the practical connotations of favouring one discipline over another. Mentioned
already in the paper are the connotations of policy makers favouring psychological insights
over sociological insights. However, more personally, the individual responsibility that
psychological perspectives incite has led to a certain sense of futility as I question the ability
for society to make the full span of changes in the necessary time-frame. This is particularly
worrying coming, as it does, from a student of SD and at the very beginning of the SD
process.
The second methodological technique prescribed by SD is the integration of multiple
knowledges. That is to say that it denies the total authority of one body or another to speak
on a subject and instead demands that multiple perspectives be heard: local or traditional as
well as academic or political (Kothari, 2007). It is participatory. Too often, authorities (whether
academic or political) assume to speak on a subject with which they have little real
experience – writing, for example, on the theory of conserving land in Africa without ever
having actually been to Africa. Even with experience, one’s knowledge is partial. It is for this
reason that SD also encourages reflexivity in its writers – acknowledging the circumstantial
elements that might impact upon one’s experience of a phenomena. Thus the paragraph in
Section 3 on my own positionality and the emphasis throughout on the qualitative rather than
MN: 110001435 !49

quantitative data. After all, without the attention paid to individuals’ own accounts of their
stories, this paper would never have uncovered their intriguing perspectives on their own and
others’ recycling identities.
Lastly, the problem-solving nature of SD encourages action research, where theory
and practice are combined to create workable suggestions for improvement. Van Kerkhoff &
Lebel (2006) describe two methods by which research might be transferred to the relevant
sectors for implementation. The first is ‘trickle-down’, whereby practitioners bear the
responsibility for approach published academic material. The second is ‘transfer and
translate’ where greater responsibility is placed upon the academic to facilitate action. I have
always been frustrated at the impenetrability of many academic articles (with jargon for its
own sake) and vowed to make my own research more approachable. Writing this paper
made me realise that, under current academic expectations, this is easier said than done. In
order to show understanding of and links to existing literature, I had to include a degree of
‘jargon’. And by virtue of the everyday nature of the topic, and the academic requirement for
systematic evidencing of findings, much I’ve written here does appear to be simply common
sense. What this paper, like all academic papers, tried to show was that whilst some
‘common sense’ does make sense, some does not.
6.3 Concluding Reflections
This section aimed to place this paper into its wider SD context: both by defining what
SD meant for me and this paper, and by highlighting the importance of the methods, as well
as content, in achieving it. Unfortunately, the very nature of the SD concept makes research
on it quickly redundant as circumstances change, new realities come to exist, and
requirements change. In this way, this paper built upon those that came before it, as others
will in the future. This should be a cause for hope rather than distress, as humans endlessly
see room for improvement.  
MN: 110001435 !50

Bibliography
ABBOTT, A., NANDEIBAM, S. & O’SHEA, L. (2014) Is there a Social Norm to Recycle? In
Handbook on Waste Management, (Eds, KINNAMAN, T.C. & TAKEUCHI, K.) Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham: 53-74.
AJZEN, I. (1985) From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behaviour. In Action–Control: From
Cognition to Behaviour, (Eds, KUHI, J. & BECKMANN, J.) Springer, Heidelberg: 11-39.
AJZEN, I. (1991) The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50: 179-211.
ARONSON, E. (1969) The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 4: 1-34.
BALAND, J.M. & PLATTEAU, J.P. (1996) Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is there a Role
for Rurual Communities? FAO and Clarendon Press, Oxford.
BENSON, J. (2000) Environmental Ethics: An Introduction with Readings. Routledge, London.
BETTON, V., BORSCHMANN, R., DOCHERTY, M., COLEMAN, S., BROWN, M. & HENDERSON,
C. (2015) The Role of Social Media in Reducing Stigma and Discrimination. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 206: 443-444.
BOURDIEU, P. (1998) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Polity Press, Oxford.
CHARMAZ, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis.
Sage Publications, London.
CHORLTON, K. & CONNER, M. (2012) Can Enforced Behaviour Change Attitudes: Exploring the
Inﬂuence of Intelligent Speed Adaptation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 48: 49-56.
CLAYTON, S. & MYERS, G. (2015) Conservation Psychology: Understanding and Promoting Human
Care for Nature. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
CONNELLY, S. (2007) Mapping Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept. Local
Environment, 12.3: 259-278.
CROYDON COUNCIL (2012) Compulsory Recycling: Consultation Results. URL: https://
www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/ﬁles/articles/downloads/cab20121016compulsoryrecycling.pdf
CULIBERG, B. (2014) Towards an Understanding of Consumer Recycling From an Ethical
Perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38: 90-97.
CZAJKOWSKI, M., KADZIELA, T. & HANLEY, N. (2014) We Want to Sort! Assessing Households’
Preferences for Sorting Waste. Resource and Energy Economics, 36: 290-306.
MN: 110001435 !51

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 Behaviors. Advances in Consumer Research, 22:
251-256.
DAI, Y.C., GORDON, M.P.R., YE, J.Y., XU, D.Y., LIN, Z.Y., ROBINSON, N.K.L., WOODARD, R. &
HARDER, M.K. (2015) Why Doorstepping Can Increase Household Waste Recycling. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 102: 9-19.
DALY, G. (2008) Ology Schmology: A Post-Structuralist Approach. Politics, 28.1: 57-60.
DAWES, R.M. (1980) Social Dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31: 169-193.
DE YOUNG, R. (1988) Exploring the Difference Between Recyclers and Non-Recyclers: The Role of
Information. Journal of Environmental Systems, 18.4: 341-351.
DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DCLG) (2010) Indices of
Deprivation 2010. URL: http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/indices-deprivation-2010
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA) (2008) A Framework
for Pro-Environmental Behaviours: Report.
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA) (2011) Guidance on
Applying the Waste Hierarchy. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/ﬁle/69403/pb13530-waste-hierarchy-guidance.pdf
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA) (2015) ENV23 – UK
Statistics on Waste. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env23-uk-waste-
data-and-management
DERKSEN, L. & GARTRELL, J. (1993) The Social Context of Recycling. American Sociological
Review, 58.3: 434-442.
DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. & CLAYTON, S. (2010) Introduction to the Special Issue: Place, Identity and
Environmental Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30: 267-270.
DOWDING, K. (2016) Collective Action Problem. Encyclopaedia Britannica. URL: http://
www.britannica.com/topic/collective-action-problem-1917157
DUNLAP, R.E., VAN LIERE, K.D., MERTIG, A.G. & JONES, R.E. (2000) New Trends in Measuring
Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised
NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56.3: 425-442.
ECKERSLEY, R. (1992) Environmentalism and Political Theory. UCL Press Ltd., London.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990. Chapter 43. The Stationery Ofﬁce, London.
MN: 110001435 !52

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) (2015) The Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and
of the Council Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
resource.html?uri=cellar:c2b5929d-999e-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0018.02/
DOC_1&format=PDF
EUROPEAN UNION (EU) (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. Official Journal of the
European Union, L 132. 3-30.
FESTINGER, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, California.
FESTINGER, L. & CARLSMITH, J.M. (1959) Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58.2: 203-210.
FORNARA, F., CARRUS, G., PASSAFARO, P. & BONNES, M. (2011) Distinguishing the Sources of
Normative Influence on Proenvironmental Behaviors: The Role of Local Norms in Household
Waste Recycling. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14.5: 623-635.
FOUCAULT, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-7. (Ed,
GORDON, C.) Longman, Harlow.
GIBBONS, F.A., GERRARD, M., H., B. & RUSSEL, D.W. (1998) Reasoned Action and Social
Reaction: Willingness and Intention as Independent Predictors of Health Risk. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74.5: 1164-1180.
GOFFMAN, E. (1968) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Penguin Books,
Harmondsworth.
GRAHAM, E. (2005) Philosophies Underlying Human Geography Research. In Methods in Human
Geography: A Guide for Students Doing A Research Project, (Eds, FLOWERDEW, R. & MARTIN,
D.) Pearson Education Limited, Harlow: 8-33.
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY (GLA) (2014A) Land Area and Population Density, Ward and
Borough. URL: http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/land-area-and-population-density-ward-and-
borough
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY (GLA) (2014B) Ward Profiles and Atlas. URL: http://
data.london.gov.uk/dataset/ward-profiles-and-atlas
HAGHIGHAT, R. (2001) A Unitary Theory of Stigmatisation: Pursuit of Self-Interest and Routes to
Destigmatisation. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178: 207-215.
HARALAMBOS, M. & HOLBORN, M. (2000) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 5th Edition.
HarperCollins, London.
MN: 110001435 !53

HARDIN, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162: 1243-1248.
HARGREAVES, T. (2010) Putting Foucault to Work on the Environment: Exploring Pro-Environmental
Behaviour Change as a Form of Discipline. CSERGE Working Paper, EDM 10-11: 1-21.
HIBBERT, L. (2009) Eco-Vision or Greenwash. Professional Engineering, 22.8: 18-19.
HINCHLIFFE, S. (1996) Helping the Earth Begins At Home: The Social Construction of Socio-
Environmental Responsibilities. Global Environmental Change, 6.1: 53-62.
HOPPER, J.R. & NIELSEN, J.M. (1991) Recycling as Altruistic Behavior: Normative and Behavioral
Strategies to Expand Participation in a Community Recycling Program. Environment and
Behavior, 23.2: 195-220.
HOPWOOD, B., MELLOR, M. & O’BRIEN, G. (2005) Sustainable Development: Mapping Different
Approaches. Sustainable Development, 13: 38-52.
IMRAN, S., ALAM, K. & BEAUMONT, N. (2014) Reinterpreting the Deﬁnition of Sustainable
Development for a More Ecocentric Reorientation. Sustainable Development, 22: 134-144.
JACKSON, J. (1965) Structural Characteristics of Norms. In Current Studies in Social Psychology,
(Eds, STEINER, I.D. & FISHBEIN, M.) Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York: 301-309.
JENSEN, J.O. (2008) Measuring Consumption in Households: Interpretations and Strategies.
Ecological Economics, 68: 353-361.
JOHNSTON, C. & MOONEY, G. (2007) ‘Problem People, ‘Problem’ Places? New Labour and
Council Estates. In Securing an Urban Renaissance: Crime, Community, and British Urban Policy,
(Eds, ATKINSON, R. & HELMS, G.) Policy Press, Bristol: 125-139.
KHOJA-MOOLJI, S. (2014) Constructionist and Poststructuralist Theories. In The Social History of
the American Family: An Encyclopedia, (Eds, COLEMAN, M.J. & GANONG, L.H.) Sage
Publications, Thousands Oaks: 277-279.
KOTHARI, A. (2007) Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Development. International Institute for
Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.
LANSANA, F.M. (1992) Distinguishing Potential Recyclers Form Nonrecyclers: A Basis for Developing
Recycling Strategies. Journal of Environmental Education, 23.2: 16-23.
LÉVI-STRAUSS, C. (1972) The Savage Mind. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
LINK, B.G. & PHELAN, J.C. (2001) Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27:
363-385.
MN: 110001435 !54

Dissertation Public

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Dissertation Public

Similar to Dissertation Public (20)

Dissertation Public