Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Recycling bias and reduction neglect

Nature Sustainability volume 6, pages 1418–1425 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Waste generation and mismanagement are polluting the planet at accelerating and unsustainable rates. Reducing waste generation is far more sustainable than managing waste after it has been created, which is why ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ is ordered the way it is, with reduce first and recycling as a last resort. However, our research finds strong evidence for a recycling bias and reduction neglect. Across two surveys (NTotal = 1,321), most participants perceived recycling as the most sustainable action to manage waste. This error decreased when different waste destinations were emphasized and when choice options were reduced. When asked in study 2 (N = 473), 53.9% of participants recognized that the product design stage offered the greatest potential for mitigating waste and its impacts. However, participants only felt empowered to enact change via their consumption (72.9%) and disposal choices (23.3%). For consumers and producers alike, policies and interventions should motivate source reduction and reuse, which could help correct the misplaced preference for recycling.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Perceptions of waste management strategies.
Fig. 2: Sorting-waste task and associated certainty in responses.
Fig. 3: Perceptions of what matters most for intervention and impact.

Data availability

Data for study 1 are not available to anyone other than the research team due to language included on the consent form; therefore, requests for study 1 data cannot be fulfilled. Data for study 2 are publicly available at openICPSR (https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/181063/version/V1/view). All survey materials are included in Supplementary Sections 4 and 5. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P. & Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: a Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050 (World Bank, 2018).

  2. Wilson, D. C. & Velis, C. A. Waste management—still a global challenge in the 21st century: an evidence-based call for action. Waste Manag. Res. 33, 1049–1051 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R. & Law, K. L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700782 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lim, X. Microplastics are everywhere—but are they harmful? Nature 593, 22–25 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. de Wit, M. et al. The Circularity Gap Report 2020 (The Circularity Gap Reporting Initiative, 2020).

  6. Borrelle, S. B. et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369, 1515–1518 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Waking Up the Sleeping Giant: What Middle America Knows about Plastic Waste and How They’re Taking Action (Shelton Group, 2019).

  8. Attitudes Towards Single-Use Plastics (Ipsos, 2022); https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-02/Attitudes-towards-single-use-plastics-Feb-2022.pdf

  9. Masterson, V. As Canada bans bags and more, this is what’s happening with single-use plastics today. World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/canada-bans-single-use-plastics/ (2020).

  10. State plastic bag legislation National Conference of State Legislation https://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx (2021).

  11. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet (US EPA, 2020); https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/documents/2018_ff_fact_sheet_dec_2020_fnl_508.pdf

  12. Sustainable Materials Management: Non-hazardous Materials and Waste Management Hierarchy (US EPA, 2015); https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-management-hierarchy

  13. Solid waste management. UN Environment Programme http://www.unep.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/cities/solid-waste-management (2017).

  14. Zhang, C. et al. An overview of the waste hierarchy framework for analyzing the circularity in construction and demolition waste management in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 803, 149892 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakai, S. et al. International comparative study of 3R and waste management policy developments. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 13, 86–102 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gordon, R. The history of the three R’s. Recycle Nation https://recyclenation.com/2015/05/history-of-three-r-s/ (2015).

  17. Hyman, M. et al. Guidelines for National Waste Management Strategies: Moving from Challenges to Opportunities (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2015).

  18. Peattie, K. & Peattie, S. Social marketing: a pathway to consumption reduction? J. Bus. Res. 62, 260–268 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bekin, C., Carrigan, M. & Szmigin, I. Beyond recycling: ‘commons-friendly’ waste reduction at new consumption communities. J. Consum. Behav. 6, 271–286 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ortega Egea, J. M. & Garcia de Frutos, N. Toward consumption reduction: an environmentally motivated perspective. Psychol. Mark. 30, 660–675 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jaeger, A. B. Forging hegemony: how recycling became a popular but inadequate response to accumulating waste. Soc. Probl. 65, 395–415 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. MacBride, S. Recycling Reconsidered (MIT Press, 2011).

  23. Taddonio, P. Plastics industry insiders reveal the truth about recycling. FRONTLINE (31 March 2020); https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry-insiders-reveal-the-truth-about-recycling/

  24. Lerner, S. Waste only: how the plastics industry is fighting to keep polluting the world. The Intercept (20 July 2019); https://theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-plastic-recycling/

  25. Franklin-Wallis, O. ‘Plastic recycling is a myth’: what really happens to your rubbish? The Guardian (7 August 2019); https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish

  26. Sullivan, L. How big oil misled the public into believing plastic would be recycled. NPR (11 September 2020); https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled

  27. Zink, T. & Geyer, R. Material recycling and the myth of landfill diversion. J. Ind. Ecol. 23, 541–548 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Knickmeyer, D. Social factors influencing household waste separation: a literature review on good practices to improve the recycling performance of urban areas. J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118605 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Varotto, A. & Spagnolli, A. Psychological strategies to promote household recycling. A systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 168–188 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Robinson, S. The dangers of ‘wishcycling’. Waste Management http://mediaroom.wm.com/the-dangers-of-wishcycling/ (2018).

  31. Mogensen, J. F. One very bad habit is fueling the global recycling meltdown. Mother Jones https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/08/recycling-wishcycling-china-plastics-zero-waste-bags-straws/ (2019).

  32. Maniates, M. F. Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Glob. Environ. Polit. 1, 31–52 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lubben, A. You only think you’re recycling these plastics. Vice (2020); https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7q9pb/you-only-think-youre-recycling-these-plastics

  34. Mah, A. Future-proofing capitalism: the paradox of the circular economy for plastics. Glob. Environ. Polit. 21, 121–142 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shoptivism: why consumers (& job seekers) opt in & out of today’s brands. The Shelton Group http://www.truevaluemetrics.org/DBpdfs/Consumer-Behavior/Greenbiz-Shoptivism-Report-2021.pdf (2021).

  36. De Young, R. Some psychological aspects of reduced consumption behavior: the role of intrinsic satisfaction and competence motivation. Environ. Behav. 28, 358–409 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. García-de-Frutos, N., Ortega-Egea, J. M. & Martínez-del-Río, J. Anti-consumption for environmental sustainability: conceptualization, review, and multilevel research directions. J. Bus. Ethics 148, 411–435 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ebreo, A., Hershey, J. & Vining, J. Reducing solid waste: linking recycling to environmentally responsible consumerism. Environ. Behav. 31, 107–135 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Reducing and reusing basics. US EPA https://www.epa.gov/recycle/reducing-and-reusing-basics (2013).

  40. Adams, G. S., Converse, B. A., Hales, A. H. & Klotz, L. E. People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature 592, 258–261 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Donnelly, G. E., Lamberton, C., Reczek, R. W. & Norton, M. I. Social recycling transforms unwanted goods into happiness. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2, 48–63 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  42. US Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States (US Census Bureau, 2021); https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/INC110219

  43. Attari, S. Z. Perceptions of water use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5129–5134 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Attari, S. Z., Krantz, D. H. & Weber, E. U. Energy conservation goals: what people adopt, what they recommend, and why. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 11, 342–351 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Helm, S., Serido, J., Ahn, S. Y., Ligon, V. & Shim, S. Materialist values, financial and pro-environmental behaviors, and well-being. Young. Consum. 20, 264–284 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by the Convergent Behavioral Science Initiative at the University of Virginia and by Indiana University’s Prepared for Environmental Change Grand Challenge initiative (S.Z.A.). We thank members of the Convergent Behavioral Science Initiative and the Attari Lab at Indiana University Bloomington for pretesting surveys and offering feedback, the Behavioral Research at Darden Lab for their help in pretesting and D. Miniard for her assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering Systems and Environment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Michaela J. Barnett, Patrick I. Hancock & Leidy E. Klotz

  2. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Shahzeen Z. Attari

Authors
  1. Michaela J. Barnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick I. Hancock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leidy E. Klotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shahzeen Z. Attari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.J.B., P.I.H. and S.Z.A. designed the research with support from L.E.K. M.J.B. and P.I.H. analysed the data with support from S.Z.A. M.J.B., P.I.H., L.E.K. and S.Z.A. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaela J. Barnett.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The lead author owns a zero-waste refillery. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Grant Donnelly, Katherine Lacasse and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4, additional analysis and survey text.

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data Table 1

Open-ended survey data response with response categorical codesheets.

Source Data Fig. 1

Participant numerical ranking of the waste management hierarchy and 3Rs in order of best to worst for the environment.

Source Data Fig. 2

Numerical data for participant waste-sorting task and accompanying codesheet.

Source Data Fig. 3

Numerical data for participant selection of the most impactful stages and accompanying codesheet.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barnett, M.J., Hancock, P.I., Klotz, L.E. et al. Recycling bias and reduction neglect. Nat Sustain 6, 1418–1425 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01185-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01185-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing