Setiawan Sustainable Environment Research (2020) 30:1 Sustainable Environment

https://doi.org/10.1186/s42834-019-0042-3
Research

RESEARCH Open Access

Factors determining the public receptivity

regarding waste sorting: a case study in
Surabaya city, Indonesia
Rulli Pratiwi Setiawan1,2

Abstract
Waste sorting at the source has been enforced by the Government of Indonesia since the implementation of the
Waste Management Law No. 18 Year 2008. However, waste sorting is still not a popular practice in households.
We present the findings of a survey conducted for 900 households’ receptivity regarding waste sorting at the
source. A logistic regression model allowed us to examine the socio-economic characteristics determining the
public receptivity regarding waste sorting at the source. The results show that household heads’ years of education,
family members, current sorting practices and understanding of sorting obligations, are the factors determining
the public receptivity regarding waste sorting at the source. Moreover, we also assessed the main reasons why
households have not practiced waste sorting at the source yet. The three main reasons are mixed collection and
transport (26%), lack of sorting facilities (23%), and lack of time (22%). The findings provide useful insight for the
local government in developing mechanisms for the implementation of waste sorting at the source on larger
scales as a part of the waste reduction program.
Keywords: Obligation, Waste sorting, Public receptivity, Binary logistic regression, Surabaya

Introduction Year 2012 on Household Waste Management and

Solid waste management remains a major challenge for Household-like Waste Management. Moreover, the obli-
cities, especially in developing countries. Cities with a gation for waste sorting at the source is explained in de-
high population, and an increasing per capita income, tail in the Regulation of Public Works Ministry No. 3
are usually facing high volume waste generation [1–3]. Year 2013. However, waste sorting at the source is not
Waste sorting at the source, as an initial step to recyc- yet a widespread practice in Indonesian cities.
ling, is currently being promoted in developing countries Surabaya is the second largest city in Indonesia with
because it is considered an effective long-term means to an advanced household waste management service.
overcome the solid waste problem [4]. However, the study conducted by Dhokhikah et al. [5] in
The Government of Indonesia has enacted Law No. the east of Surabaya showed that only 47% of the re-
18 Year 2008 regarding Waste Management. This law spondents had already implemented household waste
mandates that each person is obligated to waste sorting sorting. Out of the respondents who had not imple-
at the source. Sorting at the source is a critical step in mented waste sorting, there are 62% of the respondents
the waste management cycle, as it ensures that the waste willing to separate household waste. Waste sorting activ-
generated will be reused. Reuse of waste is also ity is mainly performed in certain pilot areas. Under-
highlighted in the law as part of waste reduction. This standing the factors that contribute to the acceptance of
law is followed by the Government Regulation No. 81 waste sorting policy is important because the govern-
ment can receive more support to implement the policy.
Furthermore, the government can prioritize the policy
Correspondence: [email protected]
1
Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima
implementation to the most responsive group of people.
University, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan A study conducted by Basili et al. analyzed demand for
2
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh environmental quality related to a new garbage plan
Nopember, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia

© The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Setiawan Sustainable Environment Research (2020) 30:1 Page 2 of 8

using concepts of willingness to pay and willingness to a strategy to foster the waste sorting practice as a part of
accept [6]. To provide a clear meaning, this research the household waste management program. The main
used the terminology of public receptivity regarding objective of this study is to determine the factors influ-
waste sorting to explain the households’ acceptance of encing public receptivity regarding waste sorting in
waste sorting. A previous study that used public recep- Surabaya, Indonesia. In addition, we also examine the
tivity terminology was conducted in the field of in-house factors influencing the understanding of the obligation
water recycling [7]. to waste sorting. The influencing factors are crucial for
As mentioned previously, waste sorting at the source the local government to garner more support from the
is one of the vital elements of waste management. In de- households to practice waste sorting at the source.
veloping countries, waste sorting at source has been
practiced mainly at the pilot program level. Conse- Material and methods
quently, it has not been widely adopted on a larger scale This section describes the study area, sampling methods
[8]. Several studies have shown that recycling behavior, as well as the questionnaire structure and data
as well as waste sorting practice, is influenced by con- collection.
venience [9, 10]. However, convenience is not the only
reason for not taking part in the recycling of waste [11]. Description of the study area
Some researchers divided the factors that influence Surabaya is the capital city of the East Java Province,
participation of households in waste sorting into in- Indonesia. The city has an area of 326.8 km2 and a popu-
ternal, external, and sociodemographic factors [12, 13]. lation of 2,599,800 inhabitants as of 2017. Surabaya is di-
Internal factors are intrinsic factors that affect individ- vided into 31 districts and 154 sub-districts. Surabaya
ual’s participation, such as attitude, beliefs, and responsi- was selected as the study area because the practice of
bility. External factors are the factors that encourage or household waste management in the city is recognized
discourage the individual’s participation, such as the better than the other cities in Indonesia. The awareness
availability of waste sorting facilities. Sociodemographic of citizens in Surabaya is also considered better among
factors include variables such as gender, age, education, other cities. Therefore, it is important to examine what
and income. The scope of this study is the sociodemo- factors that influence the citizens’ awareness such as the
graphic factors that influence public acceptance of waste public acceptance of waste sorting at source.
sorting. Ideally, stratified random sampling is the best option
A study conducted by Czajkowski et al. argued that a to have a represent picture of the whole city of Surabaya.
majority of people in the municipality of Podkowa However, implementing this option requires more time
Leśna, Poland, are willing to do waste sorting at the and budget. Therefore, selecting one subdistrict that has
household level [14]. There exist significant relationships diverse households’ characteristics is considered the best
between households’ characteristics and heterogeneous choice to represent the entire city. The investigation was
preferences for waste sorting at home [15]. However, carried out in the Airlangga sub-district that is located
studies that examined the sociodemographic variables in the city center.
related to waste handling behaviors showed mixed re-
sults. Some studies have reported that socio-economic Sampling method
factors of households such as age, income, household We selected Airlangga sub-district purposively, and ran-
size, and employment are the determinants of waste domly chose three neighborhood associations from
handling behaviors [10, 16–21]. Matsumoto provides an among the listed neighborhoods within the sub-district.
empirical summary of studies at the household-level that Airlangga sub-district has eight neighborhood units and
assessed the relationship between the sociodemographic 34 neighborhood associations. We randomly selected
variables and the recycling intensity as well as the waste neighborhood associations 1, 3, and 5. The selected sam-
reduction effort [22]. Previous studies concluded that pling area is presented in Fig. 1. In total, we successfully
gender and income have a relationship to the waste sep- surveyed 900 sample households.
aration behavior [10, 20], while other studies stated that
there is no relationship between gender and recycling Questionnaire and data collection
activities [16, 18, 23]. No relationship between income The questionnaire contains close-ended questions and
and recycling activities was also found by others [24, 25]. the structure is divided into four sections. The first sec-
The results of previous studies indicate that we cannot tion was related to general information about the re-
generalize the sociodemographic variables influencing spondents. This was followed by questions that evaluate
the public receptivity regarding waste sorting at the their behavior toward household waste disposal. The
source. By understanding the factors that drive people to next section examines the current practice and satisfac-
accept waste sorting, the local government can formulate tion in household waste management service. The last
Setiawan Sustainable Environment Research (2020) 30:1 Page 3 of 8

Fig. 1 Map of the sampling area in the context of Surabaya

section included questions to evaluate the public recep- (2) Public receptivity regarding waste sorting
tivity regarding waste sorting. The detailed questions in (Y2)—acceptance from households whether they
each section is presented in Table 1. The data were ob- will participate in waste sorting or not.
tained using face-to-face interview. The main survey was
conducted for 14 d during August 17–30, 2017, which A binary logistic regression was applied to evaluate the
was preceded by a pilot survey. We received 900 re- socio-economic factors determining households’ satisfac-
sponses, which corresponds to a response ratio of 98%. tion regarding the current waste management service,
understanding the obligation for waste sorting, and the
public receptivity regarding waste sorting at the source.
Data analysis The logistic regression model is presented as follows:
We applied a logistic regression method to explain
the relationship between independent variables and pð x Þ
log ¼ β0 þ β1 X 1 þ … þ βp X p þ e ð1Þ
outcome variables. The independent variables used in 1−p ðxÞ
this study are the socio-economic characteristics of
households, such as gender, age, household head’s where p is the probability of public receptivity regarding
years of education, family members, and monthly in- waste sorting at source; β0 is the constant term; β1 and
come. While the outcome variables were described as βp are the coefficients of the independent variables, X1
follows: and Xp are the vectors of independent variables, and e is
the error term.
(1) Understanding the obligation to perform waste
sorting (Y1)—understanding of households and Results and discussion
their obligation to perform waste sorting at the This section describes the socio-economic characteristics
source, according to the law. of the respondents’ behavior toward household waste
Setiawan Sustainable Environment Research (2020) 30:1 Page 4 of 8

Table 1 Questionnaire design half of the household heads have completed their senior
No. Description Type of question high school. Working in the private sector is the most
I. Respondent General Information common occupation in the study area, with 41.2%.
Name Open-ended
There are more than 60% of households who have been
living in the area for more than 20 years. Those who
Gender Close-ended
have family member no more than 4 people accounted
Age Open-ended for 77.2% of the respondents.
Household head’s years Close-ended
of education (multiple choice)
Behavior toward household waste disposal
Family members Close-ended The information concerning behavior toward household
(multiple choice)
waste disposal is divided into four questions, i.e., total
Monthly income Close-ended daily waste generation per household, person engaging
(multiple choice)
in daily waste disposal to the collection station, waste
Home ownership Close-ended
(multiple choice)
sorting before disposal, and walking time to the nearest
collection station. The results are shown in Table 3.
II. Behavior toward Household
Waste Disposal More than 48% of the households generate ≤1 kg waste
daily. The person who generally engaged in household
Total waste generation Close-ended
(multiple choice) waste disposal was mainly the mother or the wife at
Person responsible for Close-ended
44.1%. A high proportion of respondents (41.2%) also
household waste disposal (multiple choice) answered that maid is the person who helps to dispose
Waste sorting before disposal Close-ended of the waste. More than 58% of the households have
(multiple choice) been practicing waste sorting before disposal. House-
Walking time to the nearest Close-ended holds who have 6 to 10 min walking time to nearest col-
waste collection station (multiple choice) lection station had the highest share with more than
III. Current Practice and Satisfaction 65% of the respondents.
toward Household Waste
Management Service
Current practice and satisfaction toward household waste
Regular schedule for waste Close-ended management service
collection (multiple choice)
The questions under this section are divided into three
Satisfaction toward waste Close-ended parts, i.e., regular schedule for waste collection, satisfac-
management service
tion toward the waste management service, and under-
Understanding the obligation Close-ended
for waste sorting
standing the obligation to household waste sorting.
Table 4 shows that majority of the respondents (92%)
IV. Public Receptivity
have a regular schedule for household waste collection.
Receptivity of waste sorting Close-ended The waste collection schedule is usually three to five
Reasons for rejecting waste sorting Close-ended times a week. For the question of satisfaction of house-
(multiple choice)
holds toward waste management service, more than 72%
of respondents satisfied with the current household
disposal, the current practices and satisfaction regarding waste service. The response to the question of under-
household waste management services, public receptivity standing the obligation toward waste sorting shows that
and reasons for rejection, factors influencing satisfaction less than 40% of respondents are aware that the waste
regarding current waste management service, under- management law obliges them for waste sorting at
standing the obligation for waste sorting, and the factors source. It means that the obligation to waste sorting is
influencing the public receptivity regarding waste not yet widely known, although the implementation of
sorting. the law has been started in 2008.

Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents Public receptivity and reasons for rejection
The socio-economic backgrounds of the respondents are The fourth section of the questionnaire asked about the
shown in Table 2. Of all the respondents, 33.4% were acceptance of doing waste sorting and reasons for not
male and 66.6% were female. The age of the respondents doing waste sorting. Table 5 shows that the practice of
ranged from 17 to 94 years old, with the middle group at waste sorting is accepted by more than 90% of the re-
35 to 60 years old accounting for 68.8% of the respon- spondents. This result indicates that waste sorting
dents. In the sample, 51% of the household heads have program has high probability to be supported by house-
had 10 to 12 years of education, that means more than holds. We also assessed the main reasons why
Setiawan Sustainable Environment Research (2020) 30:1 Page 5 of 8

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of socio-economic characteristics of the respondents

Socio-economic characteristics Category Observation No of respondents (%)
Freq. Percentage
Gender Male 900 301 33.4
Female 599 66.6
Age 18–34 900 114 12.7
35–60 619 68.8
> 60 167 18.6
Household heads’ years of education ≤ 9 yr 898 186 20.7
10–12 yr 459 51.1
> 12 yr 253 28.2
Length of stay ≤ 5 yr 900 70 7.8
6–10 yr 108 12.0
11–20 yr 157 17.4
> 20 yr 565 62.8
Family members 1–4 897 692 77.2
5–6 176 19.6
> 6 29 3.2
Monthly income < IDR 3,000,000 898 453 50.5
IDR 3,000,000–6,000,000 338 37.6
> IDR 6,000,000 107 11.9
Note: 1 USD = IDR 14,344 (rate in July 2018)

households have not practiced waste sorting at the

source yet (see Fig. 2). The three main reasons are mixed
collection and transport (26%), lack of sorting facilities
Table 3 Behavior toward household waste disposal
(23%), and lack of time (22%).
Questions Number of respondents Percentage (%)
Understanding the waste sorting obligation and the
Household waste generation
factors influencing the public receptivity regarding waste
≤ 1 kg 431 48.4 sorting
1.1–1.9 kg 324 36.4 Socio-economic conditions, like educational level and in-
2–2.5 kg 87 9.8 come, are most often the factors correlated with the citi-
> 2.5 kg 49 5.5 zens’ perceptions and attitudes towards environmental
Person(s) engaging in household waste disposal
policies. This section shows the results of the analysis re-
garding the understanding of waste sorting obligation
Husband/father 77 8.6
and the public receptivity regarding waste sorting.
Wife/mother 395 44.1
Child 24 2.7 Table 4 Understanding of the obligation to waste sorting
Maid 369 41.2 Questions Number of respondents Percentage (%)
All family members 30 3.4 Regular schedule for waste collection
Waste sorting before disposal Yes 833 92.8
Yes 520 58.0 No 65 7.2
No 376 42.0 Satisfaction toward waste management service
Walking time to nearest waste collection station Yes 650 72.5
< 5 min 167 18.6 No 246 27.5
6–10 min 590 65.7 Understanding of the obligation to waste sorting
11–15 min 115 12.8 Yes 339 37.8
> 15 min 26 2.9 No 557 62.2
Setiawan Sustainable Environment Research (2020) 30:1 Page 6 of 8

Table 5 Public receptivity Table 6 Results from the binary logistic regression on
Questions Number of respondents Percentage (%) understanding of obligation to perform waste sorting
Public receptivity regarding waste sorting Socio-economic variables Understanding of
sorting obligation
Yes 843 94.1
Gender
No 53 5.9
Female 0.5345*** (0.1564)
Age
Table 6 presents the factors influencing households’ un- Middle (35–60) 0.1738 (0.2177)
derstanding of waste sorting obligation. There are three
Old (> 60) 0.1397 (0.2723)
significant factors influencing the understanding of
waste sorting obligation, those are: gender, monthly in- Household heads’ years of education
come, and current sorting practice. The other three fac- 10–12 yr 0.3051 (0.2021)
tors, such as age, household heads’ years of education, > 12 yr 0.2272 (0.2431)
and family members are not significant factors in deter- Family member
mining the households’ understanding of waste sorting 5–6 people 0.2139 (0.1769)
obligation. Insignificant result of age as a factor that de-
> 6 people −0.6335 (0.4531)
termines the understanding of waste sorting obligation is
consistent with a previous study by Werner and Makela Monthly income
who found no significant relationship between age and IDR 3– < 6 million 0.2424 (0.1642)
waste recycling behavior [23]. While the insignificant IDR > 6 million 0.5307** (0.2547)
factor of family members is supported by others that Current sorting practice
household size does not have significant relationship Yes 0.4680*** (0.1422)
with waste recycling behavior [10, 21]. The insignificant
Constant −1.614*** (0.3074)
result of education confirms the findings of many other
Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses
investigators [16–19, 23, 26]. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
Female respondent was found to be positive and highly
significant at 1%. This implies that the probability of
waste sorting increased if the respondent was a female. implies that the higher the monthly income, the higher
The possible explanation for this result is that women the probability that the respondent understands the obli-
are more engaged in household waste disposal. The re- gation of waste sorting. The plausible argument for this
spondent who has monthly income more than six mil- result is higher income respondents may have a higher
lion rupiahs was positive and significant at 5% level. This probability of accessing information.
Table 7 provides evidence that household heads’ years
of education, family members, current sorting practice,
and understanding of the obligation regarding waste
sorting showed significant results as factors determining
the public receptivity regarding waste sorting. In terms
of education, this research showed similar results as pre-
vious studies conducted by others that well-educated
people are not necessarily more engaged in recycling ac-
tivities [10, 27]. Households who have more family
members have higher acceptance regarding waste sorting
policy at the source. This result confirms the findings of
previous studies, that number of individuals in the
household has a significant role in determining waste re-
cycling behavior [10, 21, 26]. Moreover, our research
also provides evidence that the waste sorting policy is
more accepted by the households who have already
practiced waste sorting and understood the sorting obli-
gation. The other three independent variables, such as
gender, age, and monthly income were not statistically
significant. This result is consistent with previous studies
Fig. 2 Respondents’ main reasons for not participating in
by different investigators that age does not necessarily
waste sorting
influence the waste recycling activities [16, 18, 23].
Setiawan Sustainable Environment Research (2020) 30:1 Page 7 of 8

Table 7 Results from the binary logistic regression on public government regulations concerning household waste
receptivity regarding waste sorting management in 2012. Furthermore, the operation of
Socio-economic variables Public receptivity regarding waste infrastructure and facilities was set up under the
waste sorting regulation of public works ministry in 2013. Although
Gender the legal instruments concerning household waste have
Female −0.4007 (0.4753) been enacted since 2008, waste sorting at the source is
Age not yet practiced widely in Indonesian cities.
Middle (35–60) −0.0812 (0.7975)
The objective of this study is to examine the factors
determining the public receptivity regarding waste sort-
Old (> 60) −1.1011 (0.8382)
ing at the source. Moreover, the factors influencing the
Household heads’ years of education understanding of waste sorting obligation were assessed.
10–12 yr 1.1534** (0.5169) The results showed that household heads’ years of edu-
> 12 yr 0.7074 (0.6891) cation, family members, current sorting practices, and
Family member understanding of sorting obligations play significant
5–6 people −0.9875** (0.4684)
roles in determining the public receptivity regarding
waste sorting at the source. While the factors that deter-
Monthly income
mined the understanding of waste sorting obligation at
IDR 3– < 6 million 0.5829 (0.5777) the source are gender, monthly income, and current
IDR > 6 million 0.1913 (0.9141) sorting practices.
Current sorting practice To sum up, this study reports various results of the
Yes 1.3457** (0.5600) factors influencing public receptivity regarding waste
Understanding on sorting obligation
sorting policy. The results are suggesting the more di-
verse strategy to be considered in formulating waste
Yes 0.8693* (0.5220)
management policy. For example, the government can
Constant 2.9727*** (0.9416) prioritize the implementation of waste sorting policy in
Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses the area where the people have higher environmental
***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
awareness, so that the policy will be supported by citi-
zens. The significant relationship between gender and
Household heads who have education years between understanding of waste sorting obligation imply that
10 to 12 yr were found to be positive and significant at gender is an important factor to be considered to in-
5%. Respondents who have a family member between crease understanding of waste sorting obligation. This
five to six people is also positive and significant at 5%. study shows evidence that waste sorting obligation is
This indicates that the more the family member, the more understood by females. Therefore, as an implica-
higher the probability that the waste sorting policy is ac- tion, the government shall recognize the role of females
cepted by the respondents. to disseminate information both in their family and in
There was a significant difference at 5% in current their community. Overall, the findings of this study pro-
practice of waste sorting. The possible argument is be- vide a useful insight for the local government to develop
cause respondents who already practice waste sorting corresponding mechanisms for the implementation of
are more familiar with the activity. Thus, the acceptance waste sorting at the source, as a part of the waste reduc-
of households regarding waste sorting is higher for those tion program.
who have already practiced waste sorting. Understanding
Acknowledgements
of households on sorting obligation also influences the The authors gratefully acknowledge the Indonesia Endowment Fund for
public receptivity regarding waste sorting. A respondent Education (LPDP) for providing the financial research fund of this study.
who understood sorting obligation was found positive
and significant at 10%. This result is consistent with the Author’s contributions
The author is responsible for the conception and design of the study, data
expectation of this study. collection, analysis and drafting the article. The author read and approved
the final manuscript.
Conclusions
Funding
Waste sorting at the source is one of the initial steps for The research was funded by the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education
the implementation of waste reduction scheme. The (LPDP). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis,
Government of Indonesia enacted the waste manage- decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
ment law in 2008, which mandated that each person has
Availability of data and materials
an obligation toward waste sorting at the source. The The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available
enactment of this law was then followed by the from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Setiawan Sustainable Environment Research (2020) 30:1 Page 8 of 8

Competing interests 26. Nixon H, Saphores JDM. Information and the decision to recycle: results
The author declares that she has no competing interests. from a survey of US households. J Environ Plann Man. 2009;52:257–77.
27. Saphores JDM, Nixon H, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA. Household willingness
Received: 13 June 2019 Accepted: 19 December 2019 to recycle electronic waste: an application to California. Environ Behav.
2006;38:183–208.

References
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1. Afroz R, Hanaki K, Hasegawa-Kurisu K. Willingness to pay for waste
published maps and institutional affiliations.
management improvement in Dhaka city. Bangladesh J Environ Manage.
2009;90:492–503.
2. Ku SJ, Yoo SH, Kwak SJ. Willingness to pay for improving the residential
waste disposal system in Korea: a choice experiment study. Environ Manag.
2009;44:278–87.
3. Shekdar AV. Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated approach
for Asian countries. Waste Manag. 2009;29:1438–48.
4. Charuvichaipong C, Sajor E. Promoting waste separation for recycling and
local governance in Thailand. Habitat Int. 2006;30:579–94.
5. Dhokhikah Y, Trihadiningrum Y, Sunaryo S. Community participation in
household solid waste reduction in Surabaya. Indonesia Resour Conserv
Recy. 2015;102:153–62.
6. Basili M, Di Matteo M, Ferrini S. Analysing demand for environmental
quality: a willingness to pay/accept study in the province of Siena (Italy).
Waste Manag. 2006;26:209–19.
7. Jeffrey P, Jefferson B. Public receptivity regarding “in-house” water recycling:
results from a UK survey. Water Supply. 2003;3:109–16.
8. Nguyen TTP, Zhu DJ, Le NP. Factors influencing waste separation intention
of residential households in a developing country: evidence from Hanoi.
Vietnam Habitat Int. 2015;48:169–76.
9. Timlett RE, Williams ID. Public participation and recycling performance in
England: a comparison of tools for behaviour change. Resour Conserv Recy.
2008;52:622–34.
10. Sidique SF, Lupi F, Joshi SV. The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-
off recycling activities. Resour Conserv Recy. 2010;54:163–70.
11. Ghani WAWA, Rusli IF, Biak DRA, Idris A. An application of the theory of
planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in
source separation of food waste. Waste Manag. 2013;33:1276–81.
12. Rousta K, Bolton K, Lundin M, Dahlen L. Quantitative assessment of distance
to collection point and improved sorting information on source separation
of household waste. Waste Manag. 2015;40:22–30.
13. Rousta K, Bolton K. Sorting household waste at the source. In: Taherzadeh
M, Bolton K, Wong J, Pandey A, editors. Sustainable resource recovery and
zero waste approaches. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2019. p. 105–14.
14. Czajkowski M, Kadziela T, Hanley N. We want to sort! Assessing households'
preferences for sorting waste. Resour Energy Econ. 2014;36:290–306.
15. Nainggolan D, Pedersen AB, Smed S, Zemo KH, Hasler B, Termansen M.
Consumers in a circular economy: economic analysis of household waste
sorting behaviour. Ecol Econ. 2019;166:106402.
16. Vining J, Ebreo A. What makes a recycler?: a comparison of recyclers and
nonrecyclers. Environ Behav. 1990;22:55–73.
17. Oskamp S, Harrington MJ, Edwards TC, Sherwood DL, Okuda SM, Swanson
DC. Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environ Behav. 1991;
23:494–519.
18. Gamba RJ, Oskamp S. Factors influencing community residents
participation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environ
Behav. 1994;26:587–612.
19. Meneses GD, Palacio AB. Recycling behavior: a multidimensional approach.
Environ Behav. 2005;37:837–60.
20. Ekere W, Mugisha J, Drake L. Factors influencing waste separation and
utilization among households in the Lake Victoria crescent. Uganda Waste
Manage. 2009;29:3047–51.
21. Yau Y. Stakeholder engagement in waste recycling in a high-rise setting.
Sustain Dev. 2012;20:115–27.
22. Matsumoto S. Waste separation at home: are Japanese municipal curbside
recycling policies efficient? Resour Conserv Recy. 2011;55:325–34.
23. Werner CM, Makela E. Motivations and behaviors that support recycling. J
Environ Psychol. 1998;18:373–86.
24. Derksen L, Gartrell J. The social context of recycling. Am Sociol Rev. 1993;58:
434–42.
25. Scott D. Equal opportunity, unequal results: determinants of household
recycling intensity. Environ Behav. 1999;31:267–90.