Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pro-social behaviours, waste concern and recycling behaviour in Italy at the end of the 1990s

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Economics and Policy Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines both theoretically and empirically the link between pro-social behaviours, individual attitudes regarding waste prevention and disposal, and individual recycling behaviour in Italy at the end of the 1990s, in a period in which policy makers started to make the population aware of the importance of waste prevention, disposal and recycling. In the theoretical framework, following Czajkowski et al. (Environ Resour Econ 66:647–670, 2017), we develop a utility function that represents the individual level of satisfaction, which is influenced by certain aspects related to environmental quality. In the empirical analysis, using the 1998 wave of the multipurpose household survey (MHS) conducted by the Italian Central Statistical Office and probit models, we show a positive relationship between pro-social behaviours, waste concern and recycling behaviour that is robust to the inclusion of social capital variables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The points of reference for warm-glow are Deci (1971) in the psychology literature and Andreoni (1990) from the economics literature. According to Deci (1971), warm-glow means that an individual is motivated to perform an activity when he/she receives no apparent reward except the activity itself. In the model of Andreoni (1990), warm-glow means that the individual’s utility is not just a function of the consumption of the private and public goods but also of the individual’s contribution to the public good itself. This is commonly referred to as the “warm-glow” effect and describes a form of impure altruism (Daube and Ulph 2016).

  2. Social capital is usually referred to as “features of social organization such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam 1995, 65).

  3. 3Unlike the contributions in question, we do not formalize self-image but introduce into the theoretical model other aspects that influence environmental quality.

  4. 4 We differentiate Eq. (3.3) in order to obtain the marginal increase for each ideal contribution.

References

  • Abbott A, Nandeibam S, O’Shea L (2013) Recycling: social norms and warm-glow revisited. Ecol Econ 90:10–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Agovino M, Garofalo A, Mariani A (2016) Effects of environmental regulation on separate waste collection dynamics: empirical evidence from Italy. J Clean Product 124:30–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpízar F, Gsottbauer E (2015) Reputation and household recycling practices: field experiments in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 120:366–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 100:464–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbués F, Villanúa I (2016) Determinants of behavior toward selective collection of batteries in Spain. A bivariate probit model, Resources. Conserv Recycl 106:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS (1965) A theory of the allocation of time. Econ J 75(299):493–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Berglund C (2006) The assessment of households’ recycling costs: the role of personal motives. Ecol Econ 56:560–569

    Google Scholar 

  • Berglund C, Söderholm P (2003) An econometric analysis of global waste paper recovery and utilization. Environ Resour Econ 26:429–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekke KA, Kverndokk S, Nyborg K (2003) An economic model of moral motivation. J Public Econ 87:1967–1983

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekke KA, Kipperberg G, Nyborg K (2010) Social interaction in responsibility ascription; the case of household recycling. Land Econ 86:766–784

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciol A, Montinari N, Piovesan M (2015) Do not trash the incentive! Monetary incentives and waste sorting. Scand J Econ 117:1204–1229

    Google Scholar 

  • Callan SC, Thomas JM (1997) The impact of state and local policies on the recycling effort. East Econ J 23:411–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Cecere G, Mancinelli S, Mazzanti M (2014) Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Ecol Econ 107:163–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins A, O’Doherty R, Snell MC (2006) Household participation in waste recycling: some national survey evidence from Scotland. J Environ Plan Manage 49:121–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Crociata A, Agovino M, Sacco PL (2015) Recycling waste: does culture matter? J Behav Exp Econ 55:40–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowski M, Kadziela T, Hanley N (2014) We want to sort! Assessing households’ preferences for sorting waste. Resour Energy Econ 36:290–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowski M, Hanley N, Nyborg K (2017) Social norms, morals and self-interest as determinants of pro-environmental behaviours: the case of household recycling. Environ Resour Econ 66:647–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Daube M, Ulph D (2016) Moral behaviour, altruism and environmental policy. Environ Resour Econ 63:505–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci EL (1971) Effects on externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. J Pers Soc Psychol 18:105–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Decreto Legislativo 5 febbraio 1997 numero 22. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n. 38 del 15/02/1997. Supplemento Ordinario n.33

  • Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2004) Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste. The case of the Netherlands. Resour Energy Econ 26:353–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkgraaf E, Gradus RHJM (2009) Dynamics of unit-based pricing systems and environmental activism. Resour Energy Econ 31:13–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorillo D (2013) Household waste recycling: national survey evidence from Italy. J Environ Plan Manage 56:1125–1151

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton D, Kinnaman TC (1996) Household responses to pricing garbage by the bag. Am Econ Rev 86:971–984

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage O, Soderholm P, Berglund C (2009) Norms and economic motivation in household recycling: empirical evidence for Sweden. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:155–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen B (2008) Effects of norms and opportunity cost of time on household recycling. Land Econ 84:501–516

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong S, Adams RM, Love HA (1993) An economic analysis of household re cycling of solid wastes: the case of Portland, Oregon. J Environ Econ Manag 25:136–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornik J, Cherian J, Madansky M, Narayana C (1995) Determinants of recycling behavior: a synthesis of research results. J Socio-Econ 24:105–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang JC, Halstead JM, Saunders SB (2011) Managing municipal solid waste with unit- based pricing: policy effects and responsiveness to pricing. Land Econ 87:645–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) (1998) Indagine MULTISCOPO sulle famiglie, aspetti della vita quotidiana. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT), Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins RR, Martinez SA, Palmer K, Podolsky MJ (2003) The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. J Environ Econ Manag 45:294–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinnaman TC, Shinkuma T, Yamamoto M (2014) The socially optimal recycling rate. J Environ Econ Manag 68:54–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipperber G (2007) A comparison of household recycling behaviors in Norway and the United States. Environ Resour Econ 36:215–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolli F, Mazzanti M (2011) Diverting waste: the role of innovation. In: OECD (ed) Invention and transfer of environmental technologies. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyborg K (2011) I don’t want to hear about it: rational ignorance among duty-oriented consumers. J Econ Behav Organ 79(3):263–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyborg K, Howarth RB, Brekke KA (2006) Green consumers and public policy: on socially contingent moral motivation. Resour Energy Econ 28:351–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen AL, Videras JR (2006) Civic cooperation, pro-environmental attitudes, and behavioural intentions. Ecol Econ 58:814–829

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen AL, Videras JR (2007) Culture and public goods: the case of religion and the voluntary provision of environmental quality. J Environ Econ Manag 54:162–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW (2004) Does European Union waste policy pass a cost-benefit test? World Econ 15:115–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty J (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302:1912–1914

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam RD (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J Democr 6:65–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz PW, Oskamp S, Mainieri T (1995) Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. J Environ Psychol 15:105–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidique SF, Lupi F, Joshi SV (2010) The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:242–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabernero C, Hernández B, Cuadrado E, Luque B (2015) A multilevel perspective to explain recycling behavior in communities. J Environ Manage 159:192–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadesse T (2009) Environmental concern and its implication to household waste separation and disposal: evidence from Mekelle, Ethiopia. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:183–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Thogersen J (1996) Recycling and morality. A critical review of the literature. Environ Behav 26:536–558

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C, Sharp V (2013) Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: a review of social norms and recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 79:11–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgler B, García-Valinas MA (2007) The determinants of individuals’ Attitudes towards preventing environmental damage. Ecol Econ 63:536–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh JCJM (2008) Environmental regulation of households: an empirical review of economic and psychological factors. Ecol Econ 66:559–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente-Molina M, Fernández-Sáinz A, Izagirre-Olaizola J (2013) Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J Clean Prod 61:130–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Videras J, Owen AL, Conover E, Wu S (2012) The influence of social relationships on pro-environment behaviors. J Environ Econ Manag 63:35–50

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business and Economics, University of Naples “Parthenope”, Via Generale Parisi 13, 80132, Napoli, Italy

    Damiano Fiorillo

  2. Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132 Fisciano, 80084, Salerno, Italy

    Luigi Senatore

Authors
  1. Damiano Fiorillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigi Senatore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damiano Fiorillo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fiorillo, D., Senatore, L. Pro-social behaviours, waste concern and recycling behaviour in Italy at the end of the 1990s. Environ Econ Policy Stud 22, 127–151 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-019-00251-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-019-00251-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation